Renting a car will be a pain until at least 2022(latimes.com)
latimes.com
Renting a car will be a pain until at least 2022
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-09-13/car-rental-problems-persist-until-at-least-2022
477 comments
Because you still need a car in those places if you want to experience them fully. Eg hiking in the East Bay is still pretty inaccessible by public transport from SF. So yes, you can enjoy the landmarks in the city, but if you want to visit adjacent cities and/or nature - you still need to spend a fortune on Uber or rent a car.
Ooh, this reminds me of a story from my youth.
Two friends and myself went to New York for the HOPE conference in Manhattan. We drove there but we're midwesterners so we didn't want to drive in the city proper. Our plan was to drive to New Jersey, leave our car at a friend-of-a-friend's place, and then catch the train into the city.
All went well until we were on our way home. The friend-of-a-friend was supposed to pick us up from the train station and drive us 5 minutes to his house so we could get in our car and head west. But he wasn't answering his phone.
While we sat there wondering what to do, I saw a pizza place across the street that said "free delivery" on the sign. I joked that we should order a pizza, give the address where our car was at, and then ask if the driver would deliver us as well. Without laughing, my one friend said, "let's give it a try" and strode off towards the restaurant. We explained our situation and a few minutes later the pizza guy was delivering the pizza, and us, to our car.
Two friends and myself went to New York for the HOPE conference in Manhattan. We drove there but we're midwesterners so we didn't want to drive in the city proper. Our plan was to drive to New Jersey, leave our car at a friend-of-a-friend's place, and then catch the train into the city.
All went well until we were on our way home. The friend-of-a-friend was supposed to pick us up from the train station and drive us 5 minutes to his house so we could get in our car and head west. But he wasn't answering his phone.
While we sat there wondering what to do, I saw a pizza place across the street that said "free delivery" on the sign. I joked that we should order a pizza, give the address where our car was at, and then ask if the driver would deliver us as well. Without laughing, my one friend said, "let's give it a try" and strode off towards the restaurant. We explained our situation and a few minutes later the pizza guy was delivering the pizza, and us, to our car.
You can visit Philadelphia by train from New York.
I'm actually planning a trip with a friend through the Northeast Regional. You can start at the White House / Smithsonian (seeing all of the history there), hop on a train to Philadelphia to see the liberty bell + the original capital of the country, then hop on a train and continue to NYC / Broadway and watch Hamilton.
No car (or airplane) needed. 100% trains / metros.
I'm actually planning a trip with a friend through the Northeast Regional. You can start at the White House / Smithsonian (seeing all of the history there), hop on a train to Philadelphia to see the liberty bell + the original capital of the country, then hop on a train and continue to NYC / Broadway and watch Hamilton.
No car (or airplane) needed. 100% trains / metros.
As a Philly resident... yep. For those visiting, honestly if you plan to stay anywhere near Center City having a car is more of a hassle than not. Our transit system isn't perfect but it's easily the best way to get around the core parts of the city.
And yeah whenever I visit NYC from here it's always by train.
And yeah whenever I visit NYC from here it's always by train.
What would be the sights to see in Philly?
I was planning on mostly wandering around aimlessly (actually, I'll probably still do that :-) ). But I'm all ears for any "must see" locations.
Liberty Bell + museums are the main thing I know about.
I was planning on mostly wandering around aimlessly (actually, I'll probably still do that :-) ). But I'm all ears for any "must see" locations.
Liberty Bell + museums are the main thing I know about.
Go to Arch St & N Independence Mall E. See B. Frankie's grave, Christ Church. Walk south down Independence to Chestnut. See the Bell, Independence Hall. Walk east to S 3rd St, seeing the Second Bank, Carpenters Hall, First Bank. Walk south on 3rd to Walnut, see Merchant Exchange Building. Walk West on Walnut, see 18th Century Garden, Dolly Todd House. At Washington Square, walk diagonally down to Locust Street, keep walking west down Locust about 12 blocks to Rittenhouse Square, but stop along the way for lunch and a cocktail. Walk counter-clockwise around Rittenhouse and then go South on South 19th St, until South St. Head east on South St for 18 blocks, until 2nd St. Head North on 2nd St to Spruce St, and then head East for 2 blocks to Spruce Street Harbor. At this point it should be evening, and either you can go home or check out bars/restaurants in Old Town which is about where you are.
You can also take a detour at Broad St up to City Hall (take the Broad Street line subway up and back down if you're tired). See the hall, see the Masonic Temple, see the smallest "LOVE" sign ever at Love Park. Back towards Old City there's Thomas Jefferson's little place while he was writing it, Declaration House. There's the oldest continuously inhabited street in America, with a little art walk on Fridays around there. And of course there's the Art Museum and Waterworks behind it.
If you want to speed up your whole trip, make strategic use of Philly's Indego bikes. A bike is a great way to tour up the Schyulkill, to get to the Art Museum, and head north along the bike trail past boathouse row.
You can also take a detour at Broad St up to City Hall (take the Broad Street line subway up and back down if you're tired). See the hall, see the Masonic Temple, see the smallest "LOVE" sign ever at Love Park. Back towards Old City there's Thomas Jefferson's little place while he was writing it, Declaration House. There's the oldest continuously inhabited street in America, with a little art walk on Fridays around there. And of course there's the Art Museum and Waterworks behind it.
If you want to speed up your whole trip, make strategic use of Philly's Indego bikes. A bike is a great way to tour up the Schyulkill, to get to the Art Museum, and head north along the bike trail past boathouse row.
This isn't really a sight-seeing thing, but grab a cheese steak! Pat's/Gino's are the famous spots where everyone takes photos, but IMO they're mostly tourist traps at this point. Worst cheese steaks I've had within 100 miles of Philly. Jim's is a good spot, plus it's on South Street which is a good area to walk around in.
The South Street area is also home to a bunch of mozaic murals by Isaiah Zagar, which are definitely worth checking out. There are official tours, but you can also just check out the neighborhood map here and explore some of them on your own: https://www.phillymagicgardens.org/about-us/mosaic-mural-map...
If you like walks, check out the Schuylkill River Trail - it got caught up in the recent flooding so I'm not sure what kind of shape it's in right now, but I assume it'll get cleaned up pretty quick if it hasn't been already. The view of 30th Street Station and a nearby USPS building is pretty cool at night. I've heard it can get a little sketchy if you're down on the trail at night, but as a 6ft tall white guy I never ran into any issues on the route walked home from work for ~8 months. Your mileage may vary, but the worst thing I ever encountered was kids my age smoking weed down by the river.
The South Street area is also home to a bunch of mozaic murals by Isaiah Zagar, which are definitely worth checking out. There are official tours, but you can also just check out the neighborhood map here and explore some of them on your own: https://www.phillymagicgardens.org/about-us/mosaic-mural-map...
If you like walks, check out the Schuylkill River Trail - it got caught up in the recent flooding so I'm not sure what kind of shape it's in right now, but I assume it'll get cleaned up pretty quick if it hasn't been already. The view of 30th Street Station and a nearby USPS building is pretty cool at night. I've heard it can get a little sketchy if you're down on the trail at night, but as a 6ft tall white guy I never ran into any issues on the route walked home from work for ~8 months. Your mileage may vary, but the worst thing I ever encountered was kids my age smoking weed down by the river.
Amtrak is the best way to get between those cities imo. Puts you in the center of the city and avoids a cab onto the island through traffic. Did it for work a bunch
Agree that Amtrak is the best way if you can afford it. If you're on a budget you can also take SEPTA to Trenton and transfer to NJT into NYC. Puts you at the same place, just takes a bit longer.
If you're trying to save money, the bus system works. But... ugggh.
Train is more expensive for good reason! Its a much better experience. If we're talking about the price of Uber-rides / Rental Cars from NYC to Adirondacks... I bet you that the Train to Philly or even Washington DC will be cheaper than a rental car + all those miles you put on it!
So IMO, save your sanity and go with the train. But the busses exist if you really need to cut back on $$$ even more.
Train is more expensive for good reason! Its a much better experience. If we're talking about the price of Uber-rides / Rental Cars from NYC to Adirondacks... I bet you that the Train to Philly or even Washington DC will be cheaper than a rental car + all those miles you put on it!
So IMO, save your sanity and go with the train. But the busses exist if you really need to cut back on $$$ even more.
Adding some other thoughts:
- Trains get to skip traffic, but rental car might be cheaper if you're splitting it with friends.
- Trains do break down or hit delays sometimes, but traffic is always a risk on I95.
- Buses are the cheapest but have random people (dice roll) and traffic.
- Parking a rental car might not be cheap in a city center but can be a wash depending on transit costs. Again, parking cost can be split with friends.
So my decision is usually situational.
- Trains get to skip traffic, but rental car might be cheaper if you're splitting it with friends.
- Trains do break down or hit delays sometimes, but traffic is always a risk on I95.
- Buses are the cheapest but have random people (dice roll) and traffic.
- Parking a rental car might not be cheap in a city center but can be a wash depending on transit costs. Again, parking cost can be split with friends.
So my decision is usually situational.
Oh no, I do mean by train! Both the SEPTA route and the NJT route I was referring to are trains - they just don't go the whole way from Philly->NYC, so you need a transfer.
Now, frequency on SEPTA's Regional Rail lines has tanked during the pandemic, so using it may not be as practical as it once was. Haven't checked recently. Hopefully they get service back to reasonable levels.
Now, frequency on SEPTA's Regional Rail lines has tanked during the pandemic, so using it may not be as practical as it once was. Haven't checked recently. Hopefully they get service back to reasonable levels.
If visiting New York City, must one also visit the Adirondacks and Montauk as well? How long a vacation are we talking about here?
A car is usually pretty optional for most places in Europe. Some natural areas like the Alps have better public transit than most US city centers. Not everywhere is as allergic to public transit as most of the US.
SF is also one of the better US cities in this regard. I spent several months in SF without a car and rented a car exactly one weekend to get to some further out hiking. There are actually plenty of transit accessible natural areas.
SF is also one of the better US cities in this regard. I spent several months in SF without a car and rented a car exactly one weekend to get to some further out hiking. There are actually plenty of transit accessible natural areas.
Agreed, as a resident of Portland, when we have guests in town, we spend about half their time in the natural areas around Portland. Granted getting to wine country or beautiful waterfalls can be done with various public transit options, sorta, it isn't easy. And you certainly aren't going to get off the beaten path.
If you're doing a day hike, that's what car shares are for. There's plenty in the East Bay and SF. I only started owning a car when a friend gave us their old beater, but before that and through the earlier portions of the pandemic I used car shares any time I wanted to go hiking.
LA has more extensive public transit than either sf or portland. you can get around (to basically all of the tourist destinations) just fine by train, bus (gasp!), scooters and bikes, with the occasional lyft to fill the gaps.
Maybe it's gotten better? I did a summer at UCLA a bunch of years back and I remember it took me about 2 hours to get from LAX to UCLA via bus (and the bus dropped me on the far side of campus from where I wanted to be). At the end of the summer I knew someone with a car so I was able to get a ride from the dorm to LAX, door-to-door in something like 20 minutes. I was shocked, I had no idea the airport was that close by.
Over the summer I used the bus to get around and it worked well for some destinations (I spent a lot of time in Santa Monica because that was easy) but there were others that just seemed too much of a pain (I wanted to see what Malibu was about but never did).
Now as an adult who can afford a rental car I don't think I would consider going car-free for a trip to LA, unless the trip had a narrow focus (e.g. convention at convention center all week).
Over the summer I used the bus to get around and it worked well for some destinations (I spent a lot of time in Santa Monica because that was easy) but there were others that just seemed too much of a pain (I wanted to see what Malibu was about but never did).
Now as an adult who can afford a rental car I don't think I would consider going car-free for a trip to LA, unless the trip had a narrow focus (e.g. convention at convention center all week).
LA has a very extensive system, it's just slow.
The only useful way to get to the airport via transit in LA is to take the flyaway bus. They used to have a line servicing UCLA directly before the pandemic but they've since cut most of the routes after the pandemic.
as @asdff noted, the point-to-point flyaway bus to ucla was a great, cheaper alternative, but limited service really hampers its utility. it's no consolation to you, but ucla will be connected to the purple (D) line in a couple years, which will make getting around LA from ucla much easier by public transit.
but even more frustrating was the decision not to extend the green (C) line train directly into LAX (due to lobbying by taxi interests and others). rather than even the flyaway, we should have a train line directly from LAX into downtown, a key regional business travel destination. there even was a historical train right-of-way for much (all?) of that route, but it's since been sold and parceled out.
but even more frustrating was the decision not to extend the green (C) line train directly into LAX (due to lobbying by taxi interests and others). rather than even the flyaway, we should have a train line directly from LAX into downtown, a key regional business travel destination. there even was a historical train right-of-way for much (all?) of that route, but it's since been sold and parceled out.
This just isn't true in a practical sense. LA is far too sprawling to effectively use the train without everything taking an hour longer than driving.
The train is actually the one form of transit that usually beats driving, at least the trains that are grade separated (red and purple). There is no faster way to get between downtown LA and hollywood than the redline for most of the day. The expo line is pretty slow since a lot of it runs at grade, but even then it can beat a day with terrible traffic on the 10 going into santa monica.
Agreed. Over the past decade I've commuted by some combination of all of LA's train lines, and the orange line, too.
Red and purple and the best. Although purple's lack of distance degrades the value. Green, yellow, and expo are decent, but Yellow running at-grade degrades the utility somewhat, as for the expo line, as you said. The Green line didn't freaking connect to LAX, completely negating it's potential utility.
Blue line and orange line are by far the worst, being entirely at street level and interrupted constantly with cross traffic.
Honestly, what really needs to happen is: 1) Purple line completes intended extension. 2) Submerge the blue line and install new station for connection w/ green. 3) The orange line needs to be submerged and absorbed by the red 4) New rail line from the I-5 that follows the 405 S. It would connect with the expo, LAX/green lines, and terminate with the blue line in LB. The red line would connect/intersect with it slightly north of the 101.
Already, those are pipe-dreams due to... well, everything about building public infrastructure. But LA does have the bones for some decent public transit, even if they'll never really invest in it.
Red and purple and the best. Although purple's lack of distance degrades the value. Green, yellow, and expo are decent, but Yellow running at-grade degrades the utility somewhat, as for the expo line, as you said. The Green line didn't freaking connect to LAX, completely negating it's potential utility.
Blue line and orange line are by far the worst, being entirely at street level and interrupted constantly with cross traffic.
Honestly, what really needs to happen is: 1) Purple line completes intended extension. 2) Submerge the blue line and install new station for connection w/ green. 3) The orange line needs to be submerged and absorbed by the red 4) New rail line from the I-5 that follows the 405 S. It would connect with the expo, LAX/green lines, and terminate with the blue line in LB. The red line would connect/intersect with it slightly north of the 101.
Already, those are pipe-dreams due to... well, everything about building public infrastructure. But LA does have the bones for some decent public transit, even if they'll never really invest in it.
God bless you public transport boosters but the idea of stringing together 3-4 different types of transportation to get around doesn’t seem like a very relaxing vacation to me. Renting a car is just so much easier…
As a visitor, driving in LA isn't exactly relaxing either...
San Francisco having a functional public transit system is news to me.
But at the same time San Francisco is indeed a nightmare to park in. I had the worst rental car luck of my life in San Francisco - and no, I didn't really want to have a car in SF, but I was taking a road trip up from LA, then San Luis Obispo, through Big Sur, to SF and then onwards to wine country.
We stayed a couple of nights with a friend in SF, and on the first night I hunted for what felt like an hour to find a street parking space, and I FINALLY found an open spot that didn't have any signs for parking restrictions. The next day we went to get the car and it was gone. There was red paint and "NO PARKING" on the curb that I missed in the dark, so the car was towed to a city impound. In addition to a parking ticket, there was a nasty note on the windshield about how I was a bad person for parking in front of a physical therapy facility and infirm people rely on that spot to be dropped off, etc. Something like $500 later, I retrieved the rental car and got lucky this time with a legal spot right in front of my friend's house. Shortly thereafter, I heard a crash out front and thought "wouldn't it be funny if that was our car?". It was. An elderly gentleman plowed into it. But apparently not before parking enforcement had visited again - there was another ticket on the windshield, apparently this time I hadn't properly curbed my wheels on the gently sloped street.
So yeah, in San Francisco I might take the flawed public transit, or Uber/Lyft, or scooters, or walking, or crawling or anything else over bringing a car into the city.
We stayed a couple of nights with a friend in SF, and on the first night I hunted for what felt like an hour to find a street parking space, and I FINALLY found an open spot that didn't have any signs for parking restrictions. The next day we went to get the car and it was gone. There was red paint and "NO PARKING" on the curb that I missed in the dark, so the car was towed to a city impound. In addition to a parking ticket, there was a nasty note on the windshield about how I was a bad person for parking in front of a physical therapy facility and infirm people rely on that spot to be dropped off, etc. Something like $500 later, I retrieved the rental car and got lucky this time with a legal spot right in front of my friend's house. Shortly thereafter, I heard a crash out front and thought "wouldn't it be funny if that was our car?". It was. An elderly gentleman plowed into it. But apparently not before parking enforcement had visited again - there was another ticket on the windshield, apparently this time I hadn't properly curbed my wheels on the gently sloped street.
So yeah, in San Francisco I might take the flawed public transit, or Uber/Lyft, or scooters, or walking, or crawling or anything else over bringing a car into the city.
Can't really help you with parking in the red. That's on you, and something to look for parking anywhere in the country.
Curbing your tires is definitely something an out of towner wouldn't know, so I feel you on that. It has a decent reasoning, at least.
The real problem with public transit is that there are a bunch of routes that need multiple transfers and take 3x as long as by car (with none of the reliability). Most places will have parking within 2-3 blocks or garages, but yeah it's tough.
Curbing your tires is definitely something an out of towner wouldn't know, so I feel you on that. It has a decent reasoning, at least.
The real problem with public transit is that there are a bunch of routes that need multiple transfers and take 3x as long as by car (with none of the reliability). Most places will have parking within 2-3 blocks or garages, but yeah it's tough.
Red is a poor choice for something that needs to be seen day or night. Pretty much the worst colour next to black (which is technically not a colour).
What color would be better? Green seems like a poor choice when telling someone not to park there.. Yellow is already taken (loading zone). Blue is already taken (handicap). Orange is close to yellow, and is that even better in the dark?
Signs for every single red zone is overkill (there are red zones on the edge of garages for example).
Signs for every single red zone is overkill (there are red zones on the edge of garages for example).
SF seemed like a walkable city when I visited. I walked from my hotel to Fishermans Warf and back (back is a LOT of up hill). But I think at least parts of it are pretty walkable.
Locally walkable and being able to get somewhere within ten miles as the crow flies in a reasonable amount of time are two entirely different things
Most of my vacations are combination with visits to friends/family. So until transport works where ever they choose to live I'm stuck needing a car.
Just for example: When I visit my family over holidays, they live 10 miles from the nearest bus station, 35 miles from the nearest Amtrak station, and 100 miles from the nearest international airport, nearly two states away. There are no local taxis, busses, light rail, nothing. I'm not sure how public transportation would ever work for this kind of trip. This is the case for the vast majority of small towns in the USA.
Public transportation works for that type of trip in some places. Not in the US though. If the dense cities can't even make it work where it is easy there is no point in trying those places that you point out where it is hard.
Assuming your family have a car, wouldn't they meet you at the bus station/railway station/airport?
Mine almost always do, even though there are much better public transport options than you have. I don't generally have any use for a car while I'm visiting them, so there would be no point renting one.
(I can see this would be different if you are a family of five or similar.)
Mine almost always do, even though there are much better public transport options than you have. I don't generally have any use for a car while I'm visiting them, so there would be no point renting one.
(I can see this would be different if you are a family of five or similar.)
Good idea, but I'd definitely do a lot of reading before going that route. In some cities with a seemingly functional public transit...well, it's not one you'd want to use.
NoVa/DC and SF are both good examples though of generally safe, effective public transport.(not speaking of Portland or NY as I haven't used theirs)
NoVa/DC and SF are both good examples though of generally safe, effective public transport.(not speaking of Portland or NY as I haven't used theirs)
San Francisco has great public transit if your trip starts near a BART station and ends near a BART station. Otherwise, not so much..
>functional public transit
>San Francisco
Citation needed: https://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/02/20/transit-overl... "San Francisco’s example may be the worst in the United States"
Citation needed: https://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/02/20/transit-overl... "San Francisco’s example may be the worst in the United States"
[deleted]
Do you actually have to ask why people would not want to travel to San Francisco, Portland, and New York?
Man I prefer that.
But I can think of all of one trip in the past 10 years in the US where I felt like I was someplace where I could rely on public transportation.
It's just not viable for most trips in the US I think.
But I can think of all of one trip in the past 10 years in the US where I felt like I was someplace where I could rely on public transportation.
It's just not viable for most trips in the US I think.
Does it seem to anyone else that the global economy was a lot more fragile than we thought?
Aside from maybe chips and PPE, I don't really believe so. The media just focuses on problematic areas, but if you consider how little goods disruption there was overall we fared fairly well.
Rental companies sold off stock when demand decreased to stay afloat which was rational from their perspective (and something they've done before). Problem was that when they went to re-purchase inventory, there was a car manufacturing bottleneck caused by a chip shortage (both supply chain disruption, and vehicle manufacturers voluntarily giving up their limited fab slots to consumer electronics companies because they predicted incorrectly a decrease in demand).
PS - And some seeming supply chain disruption was actually caused by panic buying instead e.g. toilet paper, water bottles, generators, etc.
Rental companies sold off stock when demand decreased to stay afloat which was rational from their perspective (and something they've done before). Problem was that when they went to re-purchase inventory, there was a car manufacturing bottleneck caused by a chip shortage (both supply chain disruption, and vehicle manufacturers voluntarily giving up their limited fab slots to consumer electronics companies because they predicted incorrectly a decrease in demand).
PS - And some seeming supply chain disruption was actually caused by panic buying instead e.g. toilet paper, water bottles, generators, etc.
Chips, PPE, skilled construction labor, resources for construction, trucking, freight rail, shipping, the list goes on. If you think its just chips and PPE and occasional runs on toilet paper, you aren't seeing the entire picture of just how jammed up the supply chain is currently and how uncertain the paths forward are as critical pieces have only so much slack left to stretch.
> trucking, freight rail, shipping
When demand exceeds 100% of normal capacity it reflects a lack of elasticity in the system rather than fragility.
I'll acknowledge the wood shortage though due to beetles eating the supply and saw mills ramping down right as demand was shooting up.
More broadly, no, I am not seeing this "critical pieces have only so much slack left to stretch." Seems like hyperbole without substance. What are these critical pieces that are just about to fail?
When demand exceeds 100% of normal capacity it reflects a lack of elasticity in the system rather than fragility.
I'll acknowledge the wood shortage though due to beetles eating the supply and saw mills ramping down right as demand was shooting up.
More broadly, no, I am not seeing this "critical pieces have only so much slack left to stretch." Seems like hyperbole without substance. What are these critical pieces that are just about to fail?
Also worth noting that meat processing plants in the US were temporarily shutting [1] down as well due to Covid, which was causing famers to start euthanizing live stock [2]. The Trump administration took action [3] to compel those plants to open under the Defense Production Act, although it's unclear if the executive order would have withstood a legal challenge [4], it did have the desired effect and farming and food processing resumed. Had the government not interfered in the operation of meat processing we might have much higher meat prices as well not to mention we would have likely had the same issues with food supply chains for raising live stock.
[1] - https://www.ers.usda.gov/covid-19/rural-america/meatpacking-... [2] - https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/02/coronavirus-devastates-agric... [3] - https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/28/politics/defense-production-a... [4] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/05/04/trump-meat...
[1] - https://www.ers.usda.gov/covid-19/rural-america/meatpacking-... [2] - https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/02/coronavirus-devastates-agric... [3] - https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/28/politics/defense-production-a... [4] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/05/04/trump-meat...
Rental car prices being slightly higher due to supply shortages doesn't make the economy seem fragile. In fact, if that's one of the worst after effects of a global pandemic, I'd call it extremely robust.
It’s not the worst shortage. It’s a fairly high-profile example, but there are a wide variety of shortages.
I think it’s fair to say that a lot of consumers aren’t much affected by them. Many businesses are scrambling, though.
I think it’s fair to say that a lot of consumers aren’t much affected by them. Many businesses are scrambling, though.
> I think it’s fair to say that a lot of consumers aren’t much affected by them.
Not directly but indirectly through higher prices on just about everything. Plus ever had your dishwasher break? Good luck getting parts… that stuff is in super short supply right now and that is just one instance. Think about elevators, MRI machines, you name it…
The supply chain runs deep.
Not directly but indirectly through higher prices on just about everything. Plus ever had your dishwasher break? Good luck getting parts… that stuff is in super short supply right now and that is just one instance. Think about elevators, MRI machines, you name it…
The supply chain runs deep.
Yes, it's all hiding just under the surface. If your dishwasher didn't break, you don't notice.
Similarly, most of the time, most people don't need a rental car, but the price of car rentals suddenly becomes more relevant if your car is in the shop for repairs.
Similarly, most of the time, most people don't need a rental car, but the price of car rentals suddenly becomes more relevant if your car is in the shop for repairs.
You wouldn't call a building fragile just because it got destroyed by a thermonuclear bomb. I wouldn't call the global economy fragile just because it falls apart when every government at once imposes draconian lockdowns for months to years.
> You wouldn't call a building fragile just because it got destroyed by a thermonuclear bomb.
Some very few buildings are designed to withstand (all but a direct hit by) a nuclear bomb. A failure of such a building would certainly exacerbate problems that arise from the nuclear war.
Likewise, the U.S. government (and many other first-world nations' governments) was supposed to have been on the ball for a pandemic. Unfortunately it, uhhhh, failed. And it certainly exacerbated the problems that arose from the pandemic.
Some very few buildings are designed to withstand (all but a direct hit by) a nuclear bomb. A failure of such a building would certainly exacerbate problems that arise from the nuclear war.
Likewise, the U.S. government (and many other first-world nations' governments) was supposed to have been on the ball for a pandemic. Unfortunately it, uhhhh, failed. And it certainly exacerbated the problems that arose from the pandemic.
Crazy GPU prices aside, I haven't really noticed any problems. So maybe the global economy is fine, or the local economy here isn't nearly as affected by the global economy as one would think.
I mean we deliberately took a wrecking ball to our supply chain (destroying folks livelihood along the way) for a year and a half. You can’t just pay people to stay home... those people were doing something “essential” to somebody and they were all forced to close or dramatically alter their business. All the people not producing things no longer doing so is gonna have a huge impact on literally everything.
Dunno how anybody could be surprised at the outcome; people warned of exactly this happening back in March of 2020 but they were harassed, mocked, shamed and yelled at.
The second and third order effects from the last year and a half will no doubt have more of a negative public health impact than covid ever did.
Dunno how anybody could be surprised at the outcome; people warned of exactly this happening back in March of 2020 but they were harassed, mocked, shamed and yelled at.
The second and third order effects from the last year and a half will no doubt have more of a negative public health impact than covid ever did.
Is "we" the USA? I don't think those chips are made in the USA, do you think USA work restrictions resulted in the chip shortage somehow anyhow?
I don't totally understand why foreign chip production couldn't ramp up quicker. But I don't think it's related to USA "lockdown"... but maybe I'm missing it?
I don't totally understand why foreign chip production couldn't ramp up quicker. But I don't think it's related to USA "lockdown"... but maybe I'm missing it?
But neither the automobile shortage nor the chip shortage that caused it were themselves caused by lockdown restrictions. This would have happened anyway.
> The second and third order effects from the last year and a half will no doubt have more of a negative public health impact than covid ever did.
Really? COVID killed millions and made millions more very sick. Meanwhile industrial economies are doing overall quite well despite lockdowns and some labor shortages.
> The second and third order effects from the last year and a half will no doubt have more of a negative public health impact than covid ever did.
Really? COVID killed millions and made millions more very sick. Meanwhile industrial economies are doing overall quite well despite lockdowns and some labor shortages.
> But neither the automobile shortage nor the chip shortage that caused it were themselves caused by lockdown restrictions. This would have happened anyway.
What would have caused them other than the lockdowns?
What would have caused them other than the lockdowns?
The texas blackout was a major factor - it hit an NXP plant that didn't manage to complete an orderly shutdown in time, and caused enough equipment damage that they couldn't get operating again at all for a month, and at reduced capacity for a long time after.
https://www.statesman.com/story/business/2021/03/12/nxp-coul...
There was also a Samsung plant similarly affected, which I think didn't really get back operational until the end of March.
https://www.statesman.com/story/business/2021/03/12/nxp-coul...
There was also a Samsung plant similarly affected, which I think didn't really get back operational until the end of March.
I rented a car last month in Spain, it was a less than year old Seat Ibiza. I booked a couple of weeks in advance, but prices seemed no different than before the pandemic.
Is this just a US issue, if so, why is the US being hit so much harder than elsewhere? Surely it should be the opposite, as the lockdowns in the US were often much less strict than Europe.
Is this just a US issue, if so, why is the US being hit so much harder than elsewhere? Surely it should be the opposite, as the lockdowns in the US were often much less strict than Europe.
I just booked a car in the US this week. Same prices and availability as before covid
Supposedly the US rental companies assumed their business would tank due to lockdowns so sold off much of their vehicle inventory. Then when people turned out to travel anyway through the pandemic, they tried to buy more vehicles and found they were hard to get due to supply chain issues.
I think it depend on the specific location. Here in Bozeman the airlines are complaining they can't fill planes because travelers can't rent cars here so they travel somewhere else or stay home. But for example LAX seems to have cars, albeit higher price than before.
I think it depend on the specific location. Here in Bozeman the airlines are complaining they can't fill planes because travelers can't rent cars here so they travel somewhere else or stay home. But for example LAX seems to have cars, albeit higher price than before.
City-dweller here. I was on the public transport bandwagon. Then summer 2020 came and I realized the buses were at limited capacity, Uber and Lyft drivers were practically non-existent, and the big 3 car rentals were liquidating their inventory. So I bought a used car, just in time too.
I still hate car ownership: the parking fees, maintenance, shocking price of gas, insurance, etc. It's costing me $20/day to sit mostly in a garage. I was saving up for a BEV. But realized air travel is out of commission and a BEV might not be practical for road trip vacations, at least not right now.
I still hate car ownership: the parking fees, maintenance, shocking price of gas, insurance, etc. It's costing me $20/day to sit mostly in a garage. I was saving up for a BEV. But realized air travel is out of commission and a BEV might not be practical for road trip vacations, at least not right now.
I feel you. I was about to sell my car right as the pandemic started but now I'm glad I didn't. Uber/Lyft quickly went out of the range of using for ordinary everyday things post-pandemic.
Folks that support American urbanism have been set back decades.
Smaller apartments in dense, walkable neighborhoods have been pretty miserable places to live for over a year now.
The bargain was that you don’t need a house with a yard when you can have an apartment surrounded by parks, restaurants, and bars; that you don’t need a car when you have transit; that you don’t need a home office…
Then all of that was taken away in a heartbeat with little regard to its effectiveness. Suddenly owning a house and a car were critically important again. It’s going to take a long time for people to come back.
Smaller apartments in dense, walkable neighborhoods have been pretty miserable places to live for over a year now.
The bargain was that you don’t need a house with a yard when you can have an apartment surrounded by parks, restaurants, and bars; that you don’t need a car when you have transit; that you don’t need a home office…
Then all of that was taken away in a heartbeat with little regard to its effectiveness. Suddenly owning a house and a car were critically important again. It’s going to take a long time for people to come back.
Should it come back? I feel like this succinctly demonstrated the innate flaws in urbanism, rather than being a novel, isolated failure mode for an otherwise robust ideal of how people should live.
I disagree. A strong counterpoint is that rural and suburban infrastructure is impossible to financially support based on the limited tax base you get from them compared to dense neighborhoods. Much fewer people on the same amount of roads and sewer systems means spending way more per capita to maintain and build them. Way more than the tax base can provide, even. On top of that, neighborhoods that are spread out require more people to drive cars, which not only increases the maintenance burden, but also requires loads of parking lots at grocery stores. And none of that grocery store parking lot is going to generate the tax income required to pay for the infrastructure needed to travel there.
Beyond that, rural and suburban services are very heavily subsidized by federal and state grants, most of which comes from urban areas.
I would say that urban living in North America has two fatal flaws:
1. Housing prices (and other cost of living)
2. Incorrect city design based on cars.
High prices, especially for housing, increase the number of homeless and desperate people. This increases crime by a lot.
Car-centric design makes moving about a dense area very tedious for everyone, including car drivers. Urban design ought to be more centered on people throughout, which means pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit are treated with more priority than cars. Every city in North America is designed the complete opposite. Not only that, but cars are very noisy and dirty compared to other modes, making the urban area even worse.
At least the city design portion can have a huge benefit. A counterexample to your point is likely most cities in the Netherlands, like Amsterdam, which reportedly have very happy citizens and very people-centric design.
Plus, 83% of Americans choose (or need) to live in an urban area despite the flaws.
For more info on the financial aspect, this video and the others in the series are great: https://youtu.be/XfQUOHlAocY
Beyond that, rural and suburban services are very heavily subsidized by federal and state grants, most of which comes from urban areas.
I would say that urban living in North America has two fatal flaws:
1. Housing prices (and other cost of living)
2. Incorrect city design based on cars.
High prices, especially for housing, increase the number of homeless and desperate people. This increases crime by a lot.
Car-centric design makes moving about a dense area very tedious for everyone, including car drivers. Urban design ought to be more centered on people throughout, which means pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit are treated with more priority than cars. Every city in North America is designed the complete opposite. Not only that, but cars are very noisy and dirty compared to other modes, making the urban area even worse.
At least the city design portion can have a huge benefit. A counterexample to your point is likely most cities in the Netherlands, like Amsterdam, which reportedly have very happy citizens and very people-centric design.
Plus, 83% of Americans choose (or need) to live in an urban area despite the flaws.
For more info on the financial aspect, this video and the others in the series are great: https://youtu.be/XfQUOHlAocY
> Much fewer people on the same amount of roads and sewer systems means spending way more per capita to maintain and build them. Way more than the tax base can provide, even.
This is simply false. Maintaining roads takes typically less than 10% of the budget of the municipality. Additionally, road construction and maintenance is significantly more time consuming and expensive in dense urban areas.
> On top of that, neighborhoods that are spread out require more people to drive cars, which not only increases the maintenance burden, but also requires loads of parking lots at grocery stores. And none of that grocery store parking lot is going to generate the tax income required to pay for the infrastructure needed to travel there.
Huh? The grocery store’s parking is part of grocery store, which generates tax income.
This is simply false. Maintaining roads takes typically less than 10% of the budget of the municipality. Additionally, road construction and maintenance is significantly more time consuming and expensive in dense urban areas.
> On top of that, neighborhoods that are spread out require more people to drive cars, which not only increases the maintenance burden, but also requires loads of parking lots at grocery stores. And none of that grocery store parking lot is going to generate the tax income required to pay for the infrastructure needed to travel there.
Huh? The grocery store’s parking is part of grocery store, which generates tax income.
Per capita, costs to support people in dense urban areas is lower than that of suburban areas [1].
[1] https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/03/05/sprawl-costs-the-publ...
[1] https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/03/05/sprawl-costs-the-publ...
> Plus, 83% of Americans choose (or need) to live in an urban area despite the flaws.
Yes, ~80% of Americans live in "urban" areas, but the majority of those living in "urban" are living in "suburban" areas if you actually look closely. For most classifications its simply either urban or rural, not urban/suburban/rural.
Yes, ~80% of Americans live in "urban" areas, but the majority of those living in "urban" are living in "suburban" areas if you actually look closely. For most classifications its simply either urban or rural, not urban/suburban/rural.
> innate flaws in urbanism
Care to elaborate?
Care to elaborate?
Essentially, flaws that are unique to and induced by scale and consolidation.
Outside of the current pandemic, those problems range from the rent-seeking consolidation of housing ownership into very few hands, to the elimination of forms of self-reliance that create healthy community — instead shifting those responsibilities to government and large institutions.
Scale also requires more top-down centralized control and regulation in order to function at all.
Outside of the current pandemic, those problems range from the rent-seeking consolidation of housing ownership into very few hands, to the elimination of forms of self-reliance that create healthy community — instead shifting those responsibilities to government and large institutions.
Scale also requires more top-down centralized control and regulation in order to function at all.
The issues you stated could be suburban or even rural issues, not just urban issues. In other words I think you might be conflating the difference between an agrarian economy with a modern economy with specialization, not urban vs rural.
I saw a different explanation. Cities are inheriently high density and make things used enmasse as much as possible and inevitably leads to more contact among others. This is unfortunately also a good way for pandemics to travel. The isolation highlighted how little they owned spacewise.
Now that is a spectrum and we are all dependent on others but they are at the high end. The low end is "compound in the middle of the wilderness which is dependent indirectly for there to be wilderness unused for them to DYI everything".
The issue will hopefully wind up rare but there is no great certainty in these matters.
Now that is a spectrum and we are all dependent on others but they are at the high end. The low end is "compound in the middle of the wilderness which is dependent indirectly for there to be wilderness unused for them to DYI everything".
The issue will hopefully wind up rare but there is no great certainty in these matters.
Rampant crime, human waste on sidewalks, parks filled with homeless encampments, used needles everywhere, riots, looting?
Not every city is San Francisco
Or LA, Seattle, Portland, San Diego, Detroit, Baltimore, DC, Chicago, Minneapolis........
In my opinion, the marginal reduction in transmission of infectious disease during a pandemic is not worth the cost moving away from urbanism. Humans are meant to congregate together, and city living and everything that comes with it are the most efficient ways to do so.
Humans have historically always congregated together, but never at the scale of urbanism — if historical precedent is the argument here, we’ve almost always operated at the much lower densities of rural environments.
City urbanism might be the most resource-efficient in many ways, but animal well-being isn’t measured solely in terms of how efficiently we can feed and house you.
If it were, factory farms would be the ideal.
City urbanism might be the most resource-efficient in many ways, but animal well-being isn’t measured solely in terms of how efficiently we can feed and house you.
If it were, factory farms would be the ideal.
Humans are not humans in cities. “Who survives in NYC without amphetamines”, I remember from a movie when I was a kid. Now I understand the sentence: With no connection to the earth, city dwellers invent an idea of ecology and relation to nature that is in total disconnect with people in farming.
For my goddaughter, killing ants is the top of all evils. Ecology should be able protecting cute things. For me, terraforming kilometers of arable land to build her colonies on Earth, that was the real crime. Cities bring the illusion that humans are legitimate in unfathomable numbers. Cities hide away nature’s constraints.
For my goddaughter, killing ants is the top of all evils. Ecology should be able protecting cute things. For me, terraforming kilometers of arable land to build her colonies on Earth, that was the real crime. Cities bring the illusion that humans are legitimate in unfathomable numbers. Cities hide away nature’s constraints.
I think you misunderstood the quote as a kid. People (or at least those without ADD, narcolepsy, etc) are taking amphetamines to compete in a fast-paced city. And besides from my limited personal experience city people may misuse amphetamines at therapeutic doses, but it seems like it’s rural people who abuse them at toxic doses.
[deleted]
If it definitely failed then Japan definitely failed to demonstrate it, with their vastly lower number of virus numbers per capita (and deaths) and high urban density.
I always struggle with Japan comparisons; it seems like
the variables we often want to directly compare are not easily isolated from deep, fundamental differences in culture, institutions, politics, and even geography.
You talk about US and I, as an Indian, realized during this pandemic that you must have a car no matter what. In last 12 years I never felt the need to buy a car so strongly as I did in last year.
Yup. In a fit of hysteria and panic, we destroyed a decade of urbanization.
Oh yeah, and we completely f’d over our kids. Like, shamefully so.
History will harshly judge the people who pushed these public policies.
Oh yeah, and we completely f’d over our kids. Like, shamefully so.
History will harshly judge the people who pushed these public policies.
I don't know if I fully subscribe to this view, but a friend of mine pointed out that the age of our leadership (President, Senate, Congress, Governors...) are all very old. They are the ones most at risk, and that may have biased their response towards harsh restrictions for people at low risk.
As a thought experiment, what if the pandemic mostly hurt 20-somethings? Would our old leaders stop everything to prevent transmission of that disease? Or would young people be told to suck it up? Or would they have asked 20-somethings to just stay home while everyone else went about their business? I'm not sure...
As a thought experiment, what if the pandemic mostly hurt 20-somethings? Would our old leaders stop everything to prevent transmission of that disease? Or would young people be told to suck it up? Or would they have asked 20-somethings to just stay home while everyone else went about their business? I'm not sure...
Do you remember the initial response to AIDS? There's your answer.
(AIDS was originally attributed to only gays and sexually promiscuous people. Best case, leadership simply ignored it. Worst case, innocent victims were attacked [read the Wikipedia article for "Ryan Wayne White"].)
(AIDS was originally attributed to only gays and sexually promiscuous people. Best case, leadership simply ignored it. Worst case, innocent victims were attacked [read the Wikipedia article for "Ryan Wayne White"].)
Fauci ran our response to AIDS too. He held back treatments for years expecting a vaccine. The Dallas Buyers Club is a good dramatization of what people were going through.
There's also some clips of him warning people not to have casual contact with gays (he says people with AIDS).
There's also some clips of him warning people not to have casual contact with gays (he says people with AIDS).
"As a thought experiment, what if the pandemic mostly hurt 20-somethings?"
This happened [1]. They told young people to go ** themselves. People had school, people went to eat, people carried on with jobs, NO government checks sent out. Deaths: 50 million worldwide with about 675,000 occurring in the United States.
"Mortality was high in people younger than 5 years old, 20-40 years old"
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-pandemic-h1n...
This happened [1]. They told young people to go ** themselves. People had school, people went to eat, people carried on with jobs, NO government checks sent out. Deaths: 50 million worldwide with about 675,000 occurring in the United States.
"Mortality was high in people younger than 5 years old, 20-40 years old"
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-pandemic-h1n...
I am sure I know the answer. The old men would have asked the young to die. It has happened during every war since the beginning of history.
I would argue that our current response is what we did have done if the young were more at risk. What Sweden did was the more correct response to the current pandemic.
But I wouldn't necessarily blame the older leaders. My company sent everyone home before the nation shut down, and it seemed mostly because people were worried about their kids
I guess you're talking more generally, but this specific problem of car shortages is due to chip shortages. It doesn't have anything to do with any public policy measures. Factories may shut down briefly overseas, but the enormous demand surge for other electronics is the biggest culprit.
There may have been blunders with the policies, but if we're talking about history judging things harshly... I think it's far more likely that the massive disinformation campaigns, irrational and willful non-compliance with reasonable safety measures, and cowardice when faced with the need for vaccination that will get the brunt of it.
So in your argument, even smart well intentioned people who disagree with these public policies are spreading misinformation? You are asserting that everybody who disagrees is wrong and harmful to society, correct?
Because I don’t think that such a thing promotes healthy, much needed dialog. The idea that any criticism or skepticism of the core tenants of the last year and a half of public policy is misinformed ramblings of crazy people…
Because I don’t think that such a thing promotes healthy, much needed dialog. The idea that any criticism or skepticism of the core tenants of the last year and a half of public policy is misinformed ramblings of crazy people…
>So in your argument, even smart well intentioned people who disagree with these public policies are spreading misinformation? You are asserting that everybody who disagrees is wrong and harmful to society, correct?
Whereas you're asserting that it's impossible for smart people to spread disinformation?
Whereas you're asserting that it's impossible for smart people to spread disinformation?
I find it fairly easy to find specific bad information campaigns promoted by smart people. For example, those two doctors in Bakersfield California created misleading arguments using bad math [0].
[0] https://www.dailynews.com/2020/04/28/california-doctors-with...
[0] https://www.dailynews.com/2020/04/28/california-doctors-with...
Meanwhile the media is full of anecdotes about kids dying and people saying “I regret not taking covid seriously” and stuff like that. Then you have that Dr. Ding guy on Twitter spreading fear and panic. Is that not dangerous misinformation?
You are committing a logical fallacy. Claiming that there have been misinformation campaigns around Covid is not the same as claiming that all disagreement is misinformation. Your outrage is therefore completely off the mark.
I don’t think that everyone who disagrees with the public policies are spreading misinformation. I also don’t think that the people making the restrictive policies are acting in bad faith, or without reasonable advisement, or are just stupid or something like that.
What part of it is hysteria and panic? Over 600k people died in the US alone.
That doesn’t mean any of what we did helped. It could have made things much, much worse.
[citation needed]
You can see effectiveness of response based on various states and regions that responded differently.
You can see effectiveness of response based on various states and regions that responded differently.
Turns out somebody took public, government source data and tried to compare regions. Good luck telling regions apart.
https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/
Nope, the restrictions really didn’t do anything at all.
https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/
Nope, the restrictions really didn’t do anything at all.
I see 5 cherry picked examples without considerations of many factors. All of this ignoring the clear trend we see in current deaths with Delta.
Just two basic things the charts don't consider:
1. If people followed mask mandates in states (e.g. Alabama vs Florida)
2. Population density and disease spread models (e.g. comparing Montana and Idaho felt like a reach, California vs Nevada doesn't consider spread in major cities vs how many major cities there are in each)
We absolutely should study this later, but some of these restrictions were little to no cost. Let's not lump them all together. Wearing a mask indoors vs if your kid can go to school or not are two very different value equations that may merit different answers of "if a restriction is worth it"
Just two basic things the charts don't consider:
1. If people followed mask mandates in states (e.g. Alabama vs Florida)
2. Population density and disease spread models (e.g. comparing Montana and Idaho felt like a reach, California vs Nevada doesn't consider spread in major cities vs how many major cities there are in each)
We absolutely should study this later, but some of these restrictions were little to no cost. Let's not lump them all together. Wearing a mask indoors vs if your kid can go to school or not are two very different value equations that may merit different answers of "if a restriction is worth it"
One of the last questions literally has all 50 states represented. How is that cherry picking?
holy shit.
~400K Americans die of preventable medical errors every year. No hysteria. No pandemic. Not even news coverage.
Our population grew by 0.58% during the pandemic.
The media does its very best to blow everything out of proportion for ratings. COVID is no exception. What a win for big pharma. 640,000,000 doses of a drug they can't be sued for. It's absolutely fantastic for them.
Now look at who they bribe.
It's been an incredibly good couple of years for our oligarchy.
The media does its very best to blow everything out of proportion for ratings. COVID is no exception. What a win for big pharma. 640,000,000 doses of a drug they can't be sued for. It's absolutely fantastic for them.
Now look at who they bribe.
It's been an incredibly good couple of years for our oligarchy.
Tu quoque, COVID: we foolishly ignore other fixable problems so we should ignore this too?
Strawman version of what I said, of course.
You had no idea about the preventable medical errors killing 400K people a year did you?
You had no idea about the preventable medical errors killing 400K people a year did you?
I doubt it. Absence makes the heart grow fonder. Assuming the pandemic does end, we’ll see greater appreciation for these things.
I don't think urbanism has been affected that much.
In my neck of the woods (SE Florida) urbanism didn't lose a beat. Rental apartments in my neighborhood are leasing at above asking. There were a few months where the city felt abandoned, property values were down, and leases were offering signing bonuses.
It's done a 180, or 360 now, city property values are climbing. New construction is way up, even with the high cost of labor and material, and shops and bars are working with the new normal. My city has taken advantage of decreased traffic to institute popular pedestrian projects that were unpopular to commuters.
In my neck of the woods (SE Florida) urbanism didn't lose a beat. Rental apartments in my neighborhood are leasing at above asking. There were a few months where the city felt abandoned, property values were down, and leases were offering signing bonuses.
It's done a 180, or 360 now, city property values are climbing. New construction is way up, even with the high cost of labor and material, and shops and bars are working with the new normal. My city has taken advantage of decreased traffic to institute popular pedestrian projects that were unpopular to commuters.
The opposite happened in some Southern California areas. Some popular restaurant streets were closed to car traffic, and the restaurants added outdoor eating spaces. This happened in Santa Barbara and Ventura. It looks like the areas are at least considering keeping that change even post covid.
Anyone living near those areas had an improved walkable neighborhood.
Also I don’t think anyone living near a park lost use of those parks.
Anyone living near those areas had an improved walkable neighborhood.
Also I don’t think anyone living near a park lost use of those parks.
> It’s going to take a long time for people to come back.
The numbers don't really bear this out. Rents are as high as ever and inventory is largely back to pre-covid in the major cities where the life you're describing exists.
The numbers don't really bear this out. Rents are as high as ever and inventory is largely back to pre-covid in the major cities where the life you're describing exists.
It depends on what people take away from this year. There seems to be little chance of any distancing restrictions returning in the US for covid so the market is being driven by how much people believe this has set a precedent which will be regularly repeated
Nothing about the pandemic made my apartment a miserable place to live. It was alaways a miserable place to live.
* There is no bike parking available, so 2 bikes occupy a large portion of my living space * The sidewalks outside my apartment are small and in a state of disrepair * Intersections are cyclist and pedestrian hostile making it hard to go anywhere without it being a stressful experience * The landlord refuses to fix my A/C when it's 118 degrees farenheit outside, meaning it is often 92F inside the apartment (And no, citing the municipal code that says this illegal does nothing and nobody has the energy to hire a lawyer right now) * The bus stop has been in disrepair to the point where it was recently just removed altogether meaning I have to walk a mile to get to the next one. * The next nearest bus stop has no shade or place to sit * I can't mount my TV to the wall or make any changes to make the small space more comfortable (like hanging shelves or mounting hooks)
I want nothing more than effective urban living, but I have yet to see it. So from my perspective, I'm not sure what was really "lost" during the pandemic that wasn't already broken.
Also, since I see some replies mentioning it, I would rather my parents ad grandparents be alive than have any of the above be fixed. So I'd be careful to judge too harshly and gain some perspective about "strict" measures to curb the spread of the pandemic.
* There is no bike parking available, so 2 bikes occupy a large portion of my living space * The sidewalks outside my apartment are small and in a state of disrepair * Intersections are cyclist and pedestrian hostile making it hard to go anywhere without it being a stressful experience * The landlord refuses to fix my A/C when it's 118 degrees farenheit outside, meaning it is often 92F inside the apartment (And no, citing the municipal code that says this illegal does nothing and nobody has the energy to hire a lawyer right now) * The bus stop has been in disrepair to the point where it was recently just removed altogether meaning I have to walk a mile to get to the next one. * The next nearest bus stop has no shade or place to sit * I can't mount my TV to the wall or make any changes to make the small space more comfortable (like hanging shelves or mounting hooks)
I want nothing more than effective urban living, but I have yet to see it. So from my perspective, I'm not sure what was really "lost" during the pandemic that wasn't already broken.
Also, since I see some replies mentioning it, I would rather my parents ad grandparents be alive than have any of the above be fixed. So I'd be careful to judge too harshly and gain some perspective about "strict" measures to curb the spread of the pandemic.
I don't know how people move into appartments where they aren't allowed to drill holes in the wall. This would make an appartement unusable for me.
Unanchored furniture is extremely risky and kills infants every year.
Yeah, there's a risk that you might drill into a pipe. In the last 20 years that happened to me once, and it was annoying, since it cost 200€ to have the pipe fixed, but it's not really a big deal.
Unanchored furniture is extremely risky and kills infants every year.
Yeah, there's a risk that you might drill into a pipe. In the last 20 years that happened to me once, and it was annoying, since it cost 200€ to have the pipe fixed, but it's not really a big deal.
You can drill holes, you just have to fill them in when you leave and consider losing a portion of your deposit. Not really that big of a deal.
You can withhold rent and put it in an escrow account and get a hotel room until your landlord provides a habitable environment regarding the broken AC, at least that was the case for me in California. They can’t evict you over this and will lose in court, of course look up your state laws as they vary by state.
> I can't mount my TV to the wall or make any changes to make the small space more comfortable (like hanging shelves or mounting hooks)
For what it’s worth, I’ve done this every place I lived and never had a problem. I always make sure to patch the holes and paint the entire wall when I move out though.
For what it’s worth, I’ve done this every place I lived and never had a problem. I always make sure to patch the holes and paint the entire wall when I move out though.
What city do you live in? Also while 2 bikes occupying a large portion of living space is not ideal, people do it in NYC in 400 sqft apartments.
My husband and I bought a house precisely for this reason. We had lived in downtown apartments for the past 15 years but couldn't take being so cooped up anymore. I LOVE the extra space and my own yard. I miss being in a high-rise, but I love my house even more.
Meh, I disagree, except for that it would be nice to have better access to a car right now. I could buy one if I had an income, but I'd only do so reluctantly.
Living in a rainforest-like climate in Vancouver, I couldn't be happier. Ya, I could use a little more space than my studio. Ya, it sucked so bad when the pandemic hit, but much much less so than in suburban areas. I still only walk 2 mins to a bar or where I buy groceries. Transit is the same. Mountains aren't far etc.. To say urbanites have been set back decades is ridiculous.
That said, idk about living right downtown, but I've always hated it anyway because it's a boring landscape with boring people.
Living in a rainforest-like climate in Vancouver, I couldn't be happier. Ya, I could use a little more space than my studio. Ya, it sucked so bad when the pandemic hit, but much much less so than in suburban areas. I still only walk 2 mins to a bar or where I buy groceries. Transit is the same. Mountains aren't far etc.. To say urbanites have been set back decades is ridiculous.
That said, idk about living right downtown, but I've always hated it anyway because it's a boring landscape with boring people.
I spent the pandemic in a tiny apartment. Did laundry in the tub for a while (no w/d). Finding space to hang sheets to dry was a fun challenge. Quickly developed an appreciation for easy to wash and hard-to-stink-up items like singlets. Not going to lie, the laundry part sucked. But that is not inherent to urbanism. Most apartments can be updated to have a w/d. Many can be updated to have outdoor space. The parks are still there. From my perspective, the bargain you describe still exists and it was never critically important to own a house or car. Still in the city and not leaving any time soon. To each their own!
On the plus side, single-family zoning laws are being dismantled on the west coast. This will lead to people demanding more transit since there won't be any parking. Of course, the only transit available will be busses because most cities/burbs are so poorly thought out that there is no room for light rail. But i'd love to see more bus routes and frequent schedules where I live. The cost is crazy: $5 one way to go from my house to the city center, once per hour, and no times per hour at night. That's gotta change.
I don't know I think it depends on the particulars of the area. Things didn't shut down everywhere, and having a car wasn't so necessary when everyone was working from home. In addition being in a high density area preserved some camaraderie and togetherness in a period of universal isolation, and being able to get out and walk around in the immediate area was a great way to fight cabin fever.
In other words, by my estimation the urban ideal continued to be advantageous for different reasons during the pandemic, though I can certainly picture other urban centers that would have been a much worse experience, in particular those with stricter mandates and poor weather (which is a truly isolating scenario).
In other words, by my estimation the urban ideal continued to be advantageous for different reasons during the pandemic, though I can certainly picture other urban centers that would have been a much worse experience, in particular those with stricter mandates and poor weather (which is a truly isolating scenario).
Shocking price of gas? I’m in Europe and have hoped for gas prices to climb at least 10x since I was in high school. We have a relatively good public transport system yet the last 5-10 years have seen insane car ownership growth and even the small town my parents live in is now jammed with cars every morning.
Everyone should not own a car, it’s unsustainable both for the planet and for the road system.
Everyone should not own a car, it’s unsustainable both for the planet and for the road system.
Don’t you suppose public transportation costs would skyrocket with 10x the gas prices? Imagine 15 euros for a liter. Holy yikes. Of course, electric vehicles would be a part of a cheaper solution.
If the price of gas increases are largely due to taxes which is sometimes the case it could be easy to simply offer rebates to public transit companies, just like you can buy diesel for farm equipment or heating without paying the road taxes.
Public transportation around me is one of the earliest adopters of EVs.
Aren't gas prices relatively negligible compared to driver salaries and other vehicle costs?
Sure, maybe. But even with no taxes on gas, (in WA state), they pay 3.29$ per gallon or so. With buses doing 3 mpg (https://afdc.energy.gov/conserve/mass_transit.html), that's still a dollar a mile. According to Indeed, driver salary here is about 20$/hr. Not sure how many miles a transit bus does an
hour, byt maybe somewhere in the 20-30 range? Honestly, no clue. So that equates maybe to the same as the driver's salary, right now.
Assuming gas prices were 10x (32.9$/gal), they'd be paying 200$ an hour just for gas.
Alright, this has gotten ridiculous. Anyway, higher gas prices would just drive alternative adoption, and that's good. I was just selfishly thinking of me having to drive my car with those prices ;)
Assuming gas prices were 10x (32.9$/gal), they'd be paying 200$ an hour just for gas.
Alright, this has gotten ridiculous. Anyway, higher gas prices would just drive alternative adoption, and that's good. I was just selfishly thinking of me having to drive my car with those prices ;)
public utilities don't usually pay taxes on gas
Which, in Washington state, saves them 0.5$ a gallon. Still 3.29 or something, then. I think busses get 3 miles to the gallon. That's like a dollar per mile, still.
And that’s is the US with absurdly low gas taxes. In Europe, taxes represent more than half the price of gas
Did you ever consider why the town is jammed with cars? Or why big cities are filled with them? Cars are enormously expensive right now. Owning a decent-sized family car costs around 400€ every month right now, a used one, mind you.
The fact that so many people pay that cost and the inconveniences of maintenance and searching for parking space should motivate you to think about the utility of car ownership.
Where I live, public transportation is great. I don't think it can get much better, practically. Yet, I have several modes of transportation where I cannot use it: Traveling out of the big city or to orthogonally to the main public transportation routes, or with small kids, or with large luggage, with a week worth of shopping bags, or when I have to get rid of garbage...
What a big city needs is threefold:
* Slow, respectful, traffic (30kph should work) -except for some big roads- shared between all vehicles (bikes included)
* Zero-emission vehicles
* Enough parking spaces (that should cost money) for all vehicles.
In order to get there, we will have to reduce the amount of apartments per sqkm and even more so the amount of office space and shops. This will work in two ways: It will naturally reduce traffic and free space for car parks.
The fact that so many people pay that cost and the inconveniences of maintenance and searching for parking space should motivate you to think about the utility of car ownership.
Where I live, public transportation is great. I don't think it can get much better, practically. Yet, I have several modes of transportation where I cannot use it: Traveling out of the big city or to orthogonally to the main public transportation routes, or with small kids, or with large luggage, with a week worth of shopping bags, or when I have to get rid of garbage...
What a big city needs is threefold:
* Slow, respectful, traffic (30kph should work) -except for some big roads- shared between all vehicles (bikes included)
* Zero-emission vehicles
* Enough parking spaces (that should cost money) for all vehicles.
In order to get there, we will have to reduce the amount of apartments per sqkm and even more so the amount of office space and shops. This will work in two ways: It will naturally reduce traffic and free space for car parks.
> In order to get there, we will have to reduce the amount of apartments per sqkm and even more so the amount of office space and shops. This will work in two ways: It will naturally reduce traffic and free space for car parks.
This sounds like prioritizing cars over people. What's the point?
This sounds like prioritizing cars over people. What's the point?
> This sounds like prioritizing cars over people.
The cars are used by people. If you prioritize for cars, you are prioritizing for those people.
The cars are used by people. If you prioritize for cars, you are prioritizing for those people.
If you take choeger's point seriously, that even with all the cost and problems people still find great utility in cars, then creating an urban environment that doesn't have adequate room for cars seems like creating an environment that is hostile to the way people want to live.
That's simply not true. There needs to be a balance, not a priority. If you build a city that is made for pedestrians, how do you leave it from the center? City design nowadays has this "we are only a 500m across plaza" vibe whereas in reality the cities sprawl over tens if not hundreds of km. You cannot make that walkable and you cannot design a transportation system that is as flexible as roads and individual vehicles. Also, people like to own stuff and have the freedom to use it whenever. So if you want to create a city for human beings you need to create a parking space that puts cars out of the way and create roads that are peaceful.
> The fact that so many people pay that cost and the inconveniences of maintenance and searching for parking space should motivate you to think about the utility of car ownership.
Car ownership has a Prisoners' Dilemma payoff structure to its utility. It's very useful to the car owners, very harmful to society at large. As more and more people have cars, the population of car owners and society at large overlap a lot, meaning everyone is paying the costs.
Do you ever wonder why it's so hard to get around without a car? A lot of it is that the need for wide roads for cars, and the need for lots of parking force all of your built infrastructure to be physically spread out. Which means you no longer can get around without a car, which means you need more car infrastructure, which makes it harder to get around without a car...
Car ownership has a Prisoners' Dilemma payoff structure to its utility. It's very useful to the car owners, very harmful to society at large. As more and more people have cars, the population of car owners and society at large overlap a lot, meaning everyone is paying the costs.
Do you ever wonder why it's so hard to get around without a car? A lot of it is that the need for wide roads for cars, and the need for lots of parking force all of your built infrastructure to be physically spread out. Which means you no longer can get around without a car, which means you need more car infrastructure, which makes it harder to get around without a car...
It was hard to get around without cars before anyone had cars, hence why people got cars in the first place.
Most things we take for granted like being able to get a week's worth of groceries home in one trip or going to enjoy a restaurant that specializes in a niche style, or buying cheap goods at a warehouse store, or being able to get to a hospital within half an hour all require automobile infrastructure. But once you have roads all over the place and parking lots at important destinations, and lots of people owning cars for these necessities, the damage is done, and car travel is the sensible mode for virtually all transportation.
The fact is taking a leisurely stroll on a nice spring morning when you want to is very different from being forced to walk for miles through freezing rain in November after a long day of hard work. You want the option to drive. There are lots of good ideas about how to make towns and cities both drivable and walkable. Anyone telling you that the simple existence of car infrastructure is the problem has not thought through what elimination of that infrastructure really means.
Most things we take for granted like being able to get a week's worth of groceries home in one trip or going to enjoy a restaurant that specializes in a niche style, or buying cheap goods at a warehouse store, or being able to get to a hospital within half an hour all require automobile infrastructure. But once you have roads all over the place and parking lots at important destinations, and lots of people owning cars for these necessities, the damage is done, and car travel is the sensible mode for virtually all transportation.
The fact is taking a leisurely stroll on a nice spring morning when you want to is very different from being forced to walk for miles through freezing rain in November after a long day of hard work. You want the option to drive. There are lots of good ideas about how to make towns and cities both drivable and walkable. Anyone telling you that the simple existence of car infrastructure is the problem has not thought through what elimination of that infrastructure really means.
> Most things we take for granted like being able to get a week's worth of groceries home in one trip or going to enjoy a restaurant that specializes in a niche style, or buying cheap goods at a warehouse store, or being able to get to a hospital within half an hour all require automobile infrastructure
It's possible to do these things without a car if your city has prioritized making that a reality. The exact mode depends on the city. Some examples:
* In the Netherlands, cycling infrastructure is strong enough that you can bike to a big box store outside the city and load up your bike with what you need [0]. You can fit a week's worth of goods in a cargo bike [1] if that's your style. There is also an argument to be made that you don't need to buy groceries weekly if your city is dense and you have a store nearby.
* In Pittsburgh, there are flyer (fast track) busses that will take you to malls in the northern car-oriented suburbs as well as light rail to the southern suburbs. So you can reach most niche stores in the metro area by bus/light rail. Although it's pedestrian hostile in the northern burbs. In the city proper, bus coverage is good enough to get basically anywhere including all the niche restaurants. Though light rail is more frequent and pleasant. Bus frequency and reliability is just OK, not great. Could be improved by changing priorities. My point here is that Pittsburgh's urban form is not great but they still came up with transit solutions that work for average people.
* In Toronto, busses run every 10 minutes on an enormous number of routes. This reduces transfer times so much that travel time is nearly on parity with cars, even though the city is very car-oriented.
I don't understand your note about hospitals because ambulances get the right of way and can travel in bus lanes.
> The fact is taking a leisurely stroll on a nice spring morning when you want to is very different from being forced to walk for miles through freezing rain in November after a long day of hard work.
I agree, but it's not so bad in a dense urban area with adequate bus shelters, sidewalk clearing and bus lines scattered everywhere.
> Anyone telling you that the simple existence of car infrastructure is the problem has not thought through what elimination of that infrastructure really means.
The simple existence of car infrastructure is the problem because it causes sprawl and exacerbates our climate emergency. Cities have already come up with the solution and that is good transit, active transit included.
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8F5hXqS-Ac
[1] https://www.bakfiets.nl/bestanden/afbeelding/2019/374-cargo-...
It's possible to do these things without a car if your city has prioritized making that a reality. The exact mode depends on the city. Some examples:
* In the Netherlands, cycling infrastructure is strong enough that you can bike to a big box store outside the city and load up your bike with what you need [0]. You can fit a week's worth of goods in a cargo bike [1] if that's your style. There is also an argument to be made that you don't need to buy groceries weekly if your city is dense and you have a store nearby.
* In Pittsburgh, there are flyer (fast track) busses that will take you to malls in the northern car-oriented suburbs as well as light rail to the southern suburbs. So you can reach most niche stores in the metro area by bus/light rail. Although it's pedestrian hostile in the northern burbs. In the city proper, bus coverage is good enough to get basically anywhere including all the niche restaurants. Though light rail is more frequent and pleasant. Bus frequency and reliability is just OK, not great. Could be improved by changing priorities. My point here is that Pittsburgh's urban form is not great but they still came up with transit solutions that work for average people.
* In Toronto, busses run every 10 minutes on an enormous number of routes. This reduces transfer times so much that travel time is nearly on parity with cars, even though the city is very car-oriented.
I don't understand your note about hospitals because ambulances get the right of way and can travel in bus lanes.
> The fact is taking a leisurely stroll on a nice spring morning when you want to is very different from being forced to walk for miles through freezing rain in November after a long day of hard work.
I agree, but it's not so bad in a dense urban area with adequate bus shelters, sidewalk clearing and bus lines scattered everywhere.
> Anyone telling you that the simple existence of car infrastructure is the problem has not thought through what elimination of that infrastructure really means.
The simple existence of car infrastructure is the problem because it causes sprawl and exacerbates our climate emergency. Cities have already come up with the solution and that is good transit, active transit included.
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8F5hXqS-Ac
[1] https://www.bakfiets.nl/bestanden/afbeelding/2019/374-cargo-...
Busses don't let you transport a new TV set or six bags of groceries. And they add an hour to the trip. That ice cream is going to be wasted.
Sure, folks use cars mostly to move just their body around. But on the occasions its more than that, a bus or bike is a very different proposition, an order of magnitude more onerous than a car.
And btw using the Netherlands as a bicycle-nirvana doesn't translate. That's about the flattest nation on earth. Anywhere else, and hauling 200lbs of cargo is not the same joyful experience.
Sure, folks use cars mostly to move just their body around. But on the occasions its more than that, a bus or bike is a very different proposition, an order of magnitude more onerous than a car.
And btw using the Netherlands as a bicycle-nirvana doesn't translate. That's about the flattest nation on earth. Anywhere else, and hauling 200lbs of cargo is not the same joyful experience.
> Busses don't let you transport a new TV set
You can purchase the TV set off the internet and have it delivered to your door by post. Or you can apply for a "no parking" permit on the front of your building and have the big box store deliver it. The delivery charge is less than a monthly car insurance payment.
> or six bags of groceries
Like I said in the post you are replying to, you can buy groceries more frequently if you live in a dense city with stores nearby. Also in Pittsburgh you are totally allowed to bring six bags of groceries onto the bus, it is quite normal. You put them on the seat next you. There are corner cases where the bus is full and you can't but in the average case it works well.
> And they add an hour to the trip. That ice cream is going to be wasted.
I buy my groceries by bus or bike. I don't know how I'd run into this problem. Everywhere in my city there is a grocery store within a 1 to 1.5 mile (1.6 to 2.4 km) radius with bus access that takes up to 20 minutes to get there. If I ever had my ice cream melt, I would buy one of those thermal bags with the shiny inside to keep it cool. It is true that busses often have longer travel times due to stopping frequently. This delay can be reduced by giving signal priority to busses and by building bus lanes (right-of-way).
> Sure, folks use cars mostly to move just their body around. But on the occasions its more than that, a bus or bike is a very different proposition, an order of magnitude more onerous than a car.
Yeah, but cases where one truly can't use transport to accomplish the given task are infrequent enough that the average person can work around it using the solutions I mentioned and some extra planning.
> And btw using the Netherlands as a bicycle-nirvana doesn't translate. That's about the flattest nation on earth. Anywhere else, and hauling 200lbs of cargo is not the same joyful experience.
Yeah, cargo bikes are just one tool in the transportation toolbox. Bikes are still surprisingly useful even in a really hilly city. But for hauling stuff up hills, one could use a cargo e-bike. Like these: https://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear/a25054215/best-cargo-bi...
You can purchase the TV set off the internet and have it delivered to your door by post. Or you can apply for a "no parking" permit on the front of your building and have the big box store deliver it. The delivery charge is less than a monthly car insurance payment.
> or six bags of groceries
Like I said in the post you are replying to, you can buy groceries more frequently if you live in a dense city with stores nearby. Also in Pittsburgh you are totally allowed to bring six bags of groceries onto the bus, it is quite normal. You put them on the seat next you. There are corner cases where the bus is full and you can't but in the average case it works well.
> And they add an hour to the trip. That ice cream is going to be wasted.
I buy my groceries by bus or bike. I don't know how I'd run into this problem. Everywhere in my city there is a grocery store within a 1 to 1.5 mile (1.6 to 2.4 km) radius with bus access that takes up to 20 minutes to get there. If I ever had my ice cream melt, I would buy one of those thermal bags with the shiny inside to keep it cool. It is true that busses often have longer travel times due to stopping frequently. This delay can be reduced by giving signal priority to busses and by building bus lanes (right-of-way).
> Sure, folks use cars mostly to move just their body around. But on the occasions its more than that, a bus or bike is a very different proposition, an order of magnitude more onerous than a car.
Yeah, but cases where one truly can't use transport to accomplish the given task are infrequent enough that the average person can work around it using the solutions I mentioned and some extra planning.
> And btw using the Netherlands as a bicycle-nirvana doesn't translate. That's about the flattest nation on earth. Anywhere else, and hauling 200lbs of cargo is not the same joyful experience.
Yeah, cargo bikes are just one tool in the transportation toolbox. Bikes are still surprisingly useful even in a really hilly city. But for hauling stuff up hills, one could use a cargo e-bike. Like these: https://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear/a25054215/best-cargo-bi...
So what are these busses and ambulances driving on, exactly?
I think you are describing lots of places where walkability has been achieved while maintaining perfectly functional road networks.
I think you are describing lots of places where walkability has been achieved while maintaining perfectly functional road networks.
Your original comment asserted that cars are essential for getting around and accomplishing tasks that an average person needs to do. My comment was refuting that assertion. Now you are talking about what constitutes a walkable city which is a different discussion.
> So what are these busses and ambulances driving on, exactly?
Roads. I never proposed getting rid of those! I want to get rid of parking which again, is a different discussion. But it is surely one informed by our original topic which was whether cars are required for daily life.
> I think you are describing lots of places where walkability has been achieved while maintaining perfectly functional road networks.
Of the three I listed, only The Netherlands fits that description. There are disincentives to owning a car there, like limits on parking spaces. I believe true walkability and livability is only achieved when we modify traffic signaling and road infrastructure to prefer pedestrians, transit, and bikes over personal vehicles. Or if space allows, provide completely separate road networks for the modes so there are no conflicts, with more direct routes given to transit, peds and bikes. We also need to remove parking. The Netherlands has done these things.
Pittsburgh and Toronto are not there yet. They are car-oriented cities with a transit system grafted on top. I'd be happy to go into more detail but we've outgrown the original topic of our discussion.
> So what are these busses and ambulances driving on, exactly?
Roads. I never proposed getting rid of those! I want to get rid of parking which again, is a different discussion. But it is surely one informed by our original topic which was whether cars are required for daily life.
> I think you are describing lots of places where walkability has been achieved while maintaining perfectly functional road networks.
Of the three I listed, only The Netherlands fits that description. There are disincentives to owning a car there, like limits on parking spaces. I believe true walkability and livability is only achieved when we modify traffic signaling and road infrastructure to prefer pedestrians, transit, and bikes over personal vehicles. Or if space allows, provide completely separate road networks for the modes so there are no conflicts, with more direct routes given to transit, peds and bikes. We also need to remove parking. The Netherlands has done these things.
Pittsburgh and Toronto are not there yet. They are car-oriented cities with a transit system grafted on top. I'd be happy to go into more detail but we've outgrown the original topic of our discussion.
> * Slow, respectful, traffic (30kph should work) -except for some big roads- shared between all vehicles (bikes included)
I understand you plan to include bikes on the roads themselves. But making a city less dense and filling it with parking spaces for automobiles makes the city hostile to all except automobiles.
> * Zero-emission vehicles
Zero tailpipe emissions. EVs still emit 1/2 as much lifetime GHG as a combustion engine personal vehicle [0]. Your plan would make your theoretical town less walkable and bikeable and force former cyclists and pedestrians to drive EVs. This results in net higher emissions since more motor vehicles would be on the road.
> Traveling out of the big city or to orthogonally to the main public transportation routes, or with small kids, or with large luggage, with a week worth of shopping bags, or when I have to get rid of garbage...
These are valid use cases but they do not justify increasing a town's emissions in the middle of a climate crisis.
> In order to get there, we will have to reduce the amount of apartments per sqkm and even more so the amount of office space and shops. This will work in two ways: It will naturally reduce traffic and free space for car parks.
This would make the city less economically productive per sq km. Compare the tax revenue from 10 parking spaces in a parking lot versus mixed use row houses & businesses in the same lot. Plus people can actually live in the latter. Is there a housing shortage in your city? There sure is one in mine. And it has tons of tax subsidized parking :)
[0] point #4 in https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths
I understand you plan to include bikes on the roads themselves. But making a city less dense and filling it with parking spaces for automobiles makes the city hostile to all except automobiles.
> * Zero-emission vehicles
Zero tailpipe emissions. EVs still emit 1/2 as much lifetime GHG as a combustion engine personal vehicle [0]. Your plan would make your theoretical town less walkable and bikeable and force former cyclists and pedestrians to drive EVs. This results in net higher emissions since more motor vehicles would be on the road.
> Traveling out of the big city or to orthogonally to the main public transportation routes, or with small kids, or with large luggage, with a week worth of shopping bags, or when I have to get rid of garbage...
These are valid use cases but they do not justify increasing a town's emissions in the middle of a climate crisis.
> In order to get there, we will have to reduce the amount of apartments per sqkm and even more so the amount of office space and shops. This will work in two ways: It will naturally reduce traffic and free space for car parks.
This would make the city less economically productive per sq km. Compare the tax revenue from 10 parking spaces in a parking lot versus mixed use row houses & businesses in the same lot. Plus people can actually live in the latter. Is there a housing shortage in your city? There sure is one in mine. And it has tons of tax subsidized parking :)
[0] point #4 in https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths
> makes the city hostile to all except automobiles.
That's simply not true. I saw that working extremely well in downtown Vancouver nearly a decade ago. Parking can easily coexist with apartments and shopping and it can get the cars off the streets, increasing space for everyone.
> Zero tailpipe emissions.
Yes, because that's what a city needs to care about. Everything else is not city politics.
> Your plan would make your theoretical town less walkable and bikeable and force former cyclists and pedestrians to drive EVs.
That's simply not true. Offering enough parking decks (and, e.g., garages in apartment buildings) will remove parked cars from the streets. This gives space for slow bikes and pedestrians. Reducing the default speed will make live much better for fast bikes (I consider myself part of the latter group, btw. I speak out of experience).
> This would make the city less economically productive per sq km.
Since when is that suddenly an argument? First of all, taxes mostly go to the country, where I live. Second, the most economical mode if living would mean to move into some barracks close to the office, and third, transportation already plays a bigger role for local economy than density of living.
> Plus people can actually live in the latter. Is there a housing shortage in your city? There sure is one in mine.
I bet you are one of these people that buy the argument that building more roads leads to more congestion. Did it ever occur to you that building apartments could actually worsen the housing crisis?
Your proposal, to make cities walkable, inevitably increases the housing shortage and yields extremely dense quarters - something I would not consider livable at all. A city should have an upper limit of people per sqkm as it should have a minimum level of green and parks.
That's simply not true. I saw that working extremely well in downtown Vancouver nearly a decade ago. Parking can easily coexist with apartments and shopping and it can get the cars off the streets, increasing space for everyone.
> Zero tailpipe emissions.
Yes, because that's what a city needs to care about. Everything else is not city politics.
> Your plan would make your theoretical town less walkable and bikeable and force former cyclists and pedestrians to drive EVs.
That's simply not true. Offering enough parking decks (and, e.g., garages in apartment buildings) will remove parked cars from the streets. This gives space for slow bikes and pedestrians. Reducing the default speed will make live much better for fast bikes (I consider myself part of the latter group, btw. I speak out of experience).
> This would make the city less economically productive per sq km.
Since when is that suddenly an argument? First of all, taxes mostly go to the country, where I live. Second, the most economical mode if living would mean to move into some barracks close to the office, and third, transportation already plays a bigger role for local economy than density of living.
> Plus people can actually live in the latter. Is there a housing shortage in your city? There sure is one in mine.
I bet you are one of these people that buy the argument that building more roads leads to more congestion. Did it ever occur to you that building apartments could actually worsen the housing crisis?
Your proposal, to make cities walkable, inevitably increases the housing shortage and yields extremely dense quarters - something I would not consider livable at all. A city should have an upper limit of people per sqkm as it should have a minimum level of green and parks.
The price of gas primarily affect the poor way more than the rich. They both pay the same but while one is paying 15% of their wages for petrol, the other is paying <1%. Simultaneously, the poor are being pushed further from the urban core, and jobs, and are spending more, in time and money, to get to those jobs.
That's the point. It forces the poors to live like "good poors" in an urban apartment and ride the bus rather than living on the outskirts and driving a shitbox. Of course the people that promote these policies have a less blunt way of putting it but that's basically the incentive they're going for.
BEV?
I'm guessing the EV is electric vehicle, but what's the B?
I'm guessing the EV is electric vehicle, but what's the B?
"Battery". Some people include plug-in hybrids in their definition of "EV", so "BEV" was created to exclude those.
> Some people include plug-in hybrids in their definition of "EV", so "BEV" was created to exclude those.
Which is really a poorly coined term because it's not as if plug-in hybrids, many of which can do people's daily commute back and forth without ever kicking the internal combustion engine on, where finding their energy from something else than an EV battery.
Which is really a poorly coined term because it's not as if plug-in hybrids, many of which can do people's daily commute back and forth without ever kicking the internal combustion engine on, where finding their energy from something else than an EV battery.
I've felt this as well. Before the pandemic, I lived in a small apartment in an up-and-coming part of my city. Downstairs was a very nice small grocery store, cafe, and central Asian food restaurant. I took the bus to work each day, and life was good.
Now, post pandemic, the small grocery store downstairs closed, as did the cafe, and the restaurant is take-out only. The neighbourhood also suffered, with many lovely small businesses closing and crime becoming as rampant as it was a decade ago. The city also raised the bus fare ~20%. This was basically the perfect storm to drive me into a house rental, buy a cheap used car, and otherwise turn me into what I resented just a few years ago.
I think this is going to be a trend for many late-twenty-somethings in north america, the regression of optimistic urbanists to begrudged suburbanites.
Now, post pandemic, the small grocery store downstairs closed, as did the cafe, and the restaurant is take-out only. The neighbourhood also suffered, with many lovely small businesses closing and crime becoming as rampant as it was a decade ago. The city also raised the bus fare ~20%. This was basically the perfect storm to drive me into a house rental, buy a cheap used car, and otherwise turn me into what I resented just a few years ago.
I think this is going to be a trend for many late-twenty-somethings in north america, the regression of optimistic urbanists to begrudged suburbanites.
The thing is — the suburban-sprawl lifestyle cannot, and will not continue. If we don't put a halt to it in order to provide a soft landing, climate change will put a more-or-less abrupt end to it (not everywhere at once, and not always through the same means). The regression of optimistic urbanists to begrudged suburbanites just means more resistance to doing anything to solve our collective action problem around climate change, and a better chance of getting the worst-case scenarios.
I don't want to argue with you or change your mind, but I also don't want to share a country with you.
My goodness, what a bleak, authoritarian point of view with so little imagination.
The prevalence of the suburban model rests on strict land use control and extensive infrastructure spending. It is intensely authoritarian already.
"Imagination" should not be a substitute for hard numbers, and hard numbers keep telling us we're not doing enough to fix climate change, over and over again.
You want bleak? Look at projections of what the planet will look like in 100 years if current trends continue.
You want bleak? Look at projections of what the planet will look like in 100 years if current trends continue.
I'm not sure how much this generalizes. I'm a city dweller and just gave away my car in July after basically not using it for the past five years. I can still walk to all the same places, they're open, the trains are still running, and I haven't had any trouble getting a rideshare driver to pick me up when that is needed.
I imagine the impact depends heavily on localized lockdown measures, and they apparently aren't nearly as strong in Dallas as wherever you live.
I imagine the impact depends heavily on localized lockdown measures, and they apparently aren't nearly as strong in Dallas as wherever you live.
> BEV might not be practical for road trip vacations, at least not right now.
Taking a BEV on a road trip vacation is more tricky and requires more planning, but it's very doable. We've taken our 2017 340 mile (when new, current max range is about 327 miles) Tesla on a number of moderately long road trips. It's a bit slower and there are some places we could not have gone, but it definitely works.
Keep in mind that you can charge 3-5 miles per hour on nearly any standard 120 VAC outlet. With one of our trips to the mountains, we ran a 100 foot extension cord from our cabin and had little trouble keeping up with mileage demands.
More concretely, last year we moved from California to Washington state, a little more than 800 miles. Since it was in the middle of C19, we didn't want to stop over anywhere, so we had to do the drive in one day.
It took us about 16 hours to drive about 820 miles, an average of more than 50 miles per hour, including charge stops. 15-20 years ago we'd do 800 mile days in about 13 hours, or an average of 61 miles per hour.
The Tesla supercharger network is pretty extensive, extremely reliable and constantly growing. I don't have a sense of how widespread/reliable the other fast charging networks are, beyond various problematic stories I've come across.
PS: I've seen youtube videos of people doing 12-15 amp 120 VAC charging (gaining 3-5 mile per hour) in Teslas using portable solar panels too.
Taking a BEV on a road trip vacation is more tricky and requires more planning, but it's very doable. We've taken our 2017 340 mile (when new, current max range is about 327 miles) Tesla on a number of moderately long road trips. It's a bit slower and there are some places we could not have gone, but it definitely works.
Keep in mind that you can charge 3-5 miles per hour on nearly any standard 120 VAC outlet. With one of our trips to the mountains, we ran a 100 foot extension cord from our cabin and had little trouble keeping up with mileage demands.
More concretely, last year we moved from California to Washington state, a little more than 800 miles. Since it was in the middle of C19, we didn't want to stop over anywhere, so we had to do the drive in one day.
It took us about 16 hours to drive about 820 miles, an average of more than 50 miles per hour, including charge stops. 15-20 years ago we'd do 800 mile days in about 13 hours, or an average of 61 miles per hour.
The Tesla supercharger network is pretty extensive, extremely reliable and constantly growing. I don't have a sense of how widespread/reliable the other fast charging networks are, beyond various problematic stories I've come across.
PS: I've seen youtube videos of people doing 12-15 amp 120 VAC charging (gaining 3-5 mile per hour) in Teslas using portable solar panels too.
I also picked up a car this year, after 11 years of not owning one.
Uber and Lyft still sucking so hard into this year was the catalyst.
I wonder if shared rides through those apps will ever return.
Uber and Lyft still sucking so hard into this year was the catalyst.
I wonder if shared rides through those apps will ever return.
> I was saving up for a BEV. But realized air travel is out of commission and a BEV might not be practical for road trip vacations, at least not right now.
Are you expecting to want a road trip in the next year that badly? Otherwise just rent, right?
Are you expecting to want a road trip in the next year that badly? Otherwise just rent, right?
They left off the part where rental companies sold off a bunch of inventory in 2020 because low demand and fixed lease payments. They thought they could flex up inventory when travel resumed. It was a reasonable assumption at the time as I don't believe anyone was talking about chip shortages back then and new cars were being heavily discounted as well.
FWIW - I rented a car in May and paid about $2000 for 4/5 days. I forget the specifics but the midsized economy class was only about 10% cheaper than a luxury SUV, so I upgraded. It was in Boston.
FWIW - I rented a car in May and paid about $2000 for 4/5 days. I forget the specifics but the midsized economy class was only about 10% cheaper than a luxury SUV, so I upgraded. It was in Boston.
Did you personally pay that!? What made it worth it? I paid about $400 for a new Rav4 recently in Canada after seeing crazy prices like yours, which still seemed high.
Yes, I paid. I shopped around and considered alternatives. But it was our first COVID era travel/vacation. It was originally meant to be an international trip but since everything was still very restricted we decided to moved all our reservations up to Boston and visit the cape cod area. We did that with plenty of time, not last minute. But after switching flights, hotel, booking new excursions, etc we went rental car shopping and realized we were in too deep to back out. Having a toddler during lockdown was exhausting and we really wanted a vacation lol.
Hey, I feel you and that's a killer response that makes sense to me. The $400 car I mentioned was similar, though no kid. Was hoping for a more extensive less-local trip, but had to make the best of it and were surprised with prices having not heard about the shortage. Congrats on being able to get out for a bit my friend.
Maybe someone can explain in kindergarten terms for me --
A root cause of this problem is that the rental car companies sold off a lot of their fleets thinking that the pandemic would absolutely crater demand for >1 year.
Am I misunderstanding? Those cars went somewhere -- they didn't go into the dump. Wherever those cars went, why are they not causing some cushion / surplus in a different place that relieves some shortage? They got locked up in a warehouse and are inaccessible? Sold off and can't be bought back?
Reporters in their simplistic descriptions make it sound like those cars just evaporated.
A root cause of this problem is that the rental car companies sold off a lot of their fleets thinking that the pandemic would absolutely crater demand for >1 year.
Am I misunderstanding? Those cars went somewhere -- they didn't go into the dump. Wherever those cars went, why are they not causing some cushion / surplus in a different place that relieves some shortage? They got locked up in a warehouse and are inaccessible? Sold off and can't be bought back?
Reporters in their simplistic descriptions make it sound like those cars just evaporated.
I mean, in the steady-state, the United States consumes 16 million automobiles a year: https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/usa-auto-industry-total-sales-... The population only grows ~2 million a year.
Cars hit end of life, get wrecked, are destroyed by floods, etc.
Also, car rental companies sold their fleets into the market after new car manufacturers slashed production, so fewer new cars were going out the door.
Cars hit end of life, get wrecked, are destroyed by floods, etc.
Also, car rental companies sold their fleets into the market after new car manufacturers slashed production, so fewer new cars were going out the door.
From my understanding, a used rental is just a couple of notches above the bottom of the market so people who bought those replaced their beaters and sent those to the junk yard. So they are not stored anywhere but are being used in place of the cars that went out of the market.
Hardly "just a couple of notches above the bottom of the market". They tend to be rather new, high mileage for their age but not high mileage in the grand scheme of things, and maintained by professionals. They're just a couple of notches below brand new.
Might be my luck then as all rentals I have rented did not look like they had been maintained at all, least by professionals (in car maintenance).
For desirability they are definitely near the bottom of the market. Even if they have a meticulous maintenance schedule, it was almost certainly driven harder.
And a in 1:1 private to rental car sale, the rental would be cheaper almost always.
>A former rental may cost less money up front, but it will also return less money down the road. Getting maximum resale value for a used rental car is difficult, because many shoppers are wary of buying former rental vehicles, so much so that some states have passed laws allowing car dealerships to call rental cars "program cars" in hopes of avoiding the stigma. https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/articles/the_pros_and_cons_of_...
And a in 1:1 private to rental car sale, the rental would be cheaper almost always.
>A former rental may cost less money up front, but it will also return less money down the road. Getting maximum resale value for a used rental car is difficult, because many shoppers are wary of buying former rental vehicles, so much so that some states have passed laws allowing car dealerships to call rental cars "program cars" in hopes of avoiding the stigma. https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/articles/the_pros_and_cons_of_...
I can see there being one or two downsides to buying a rental car, but "driven harder" is a weird one to me.
First, almost all renters avoid abusing a rental car because they don't want to get charged for any damage. (Maybe the exception would be a sports car.)
Second, I mean, unless they took it out to the track and spent a day going laps with it, cars these days are basically built to easily handle any kind of driving behavior you can get away with on public roads.
What really kills cars are accidents and lack of maintenance. Neither are hard for a trained mechanic to detect.
First, almost all renters avoid abusing a rental car because they don't want to get charged for any damage. (Maybe the exception would be a sports car.)
Second, I mean, unless they took it out to the track and spent a day going laps with it, cars these days are basically built to easily handle any kind of driving behavior you can get away with on public roads.
What really kills cars are accidents and lack of maintenance. Neither are hard for a trained mechanic to detect.
> First, almost all renters avoid abusing a rental car because they don't want to get charged for any damage.
What about constantly redlining the engine? That will put a disproportionate amount of wear on the engine for the miles driven, but won't cause any immediately-visible damage.
What about constantly redlining the engine? That will put a disproportionate amount of wear on the engine for the miles driven, but won't cause any immediately-visible damage.
[deleted]
I've never known a single person to do this. I hear it mentioned a lot, but no one ever knows anyone directly who's done it. Always "my cousin's ex's brother in law did it once."
Guys in our area of London every summer would routinely rent reasonably upmarket cars, new BMWs, Mercs, etc. for a few weeks and not just use them to accelerate hard around the roads (though they did) but sit there, out of gear and just floor it for dozens of seconds at a time.
I personally do drive rentals to the max safe performance they will give me, which is more like what the description was about, in any case.
I personally do drive rentals to the max safe performance they will give me, which is more like what the description was about, in any case.
> but sit there, out of gear and just floor it for dozens of seconds at a time.
Revving in neutral is not particularly horrible for a car. Perhaps worse if done cold. The no load situation makes timing on the car easier.
Likely one tank of regular gasoline in a performance engine, and a stop and go to the neighborhood grocery will do more damage.
Revving in neutral is not particularly horrible for a car. Perhaps worse if done cold. The no load situation makes timing on the car easier.
Likely one tank of regular gasoline in a performance engine, and a stop and go to the neighborhood grocery will do more damage.
Redlining while in Drive in automatic transmission means driver is driving over the speed limit or doing rash driving; which millions of car owners too do that. Although in both cases it never near red line in automatic transmission cars.
Redlining while parked or neutral is absurd. Who will rent car just to rev it up. & For how much time? Few minutes? Hours? People will be looking at this person who is redlining a car since last few hours.
Redlining while parked or neutral is absurd. Who will rent car just to rev it up. & For how much time? Few minutes? Hours? People will be looking at this person who is redlining a car since last few hours.
>What about constantly redlining the engine?
Not even close to a consideration as long as the engine is getting scheduled fluid changes.
Source: used to be privy to some OEM testing info.
Also, a Dodge Neon can go 50 in 1st gear, or maybe it was 2nd, I forget.
Not even close to a consideration as long as the engine is getting scheduled fluid changes.
Source: used to be privy to some OEM testing info.
Also, a Dodge Neon can go 50 in 1st gear, or maybe it was 2nd, I forget.
Most of the rental cars come in as brand new; & usually gets sold between 3 years or 36000 miles. Any car at that stage is certainly not a beater. A beater (with regular usage) will be something like 10+ years old and or 200,000 miles or over.
See the cars at enterprisecarsales.com , where most of the cars are Enterprise Rentals.
See the cars at enterprisecarsales.com , where most of the cars are Enterprise Rentals.
Some people may not consider it a beater, but rental cars get treated like absolute crap (regular gas even if they should get premium, traditional oil vs synthetic, renters beat them up because they don't care). If I were choosing between a rental car at 36,000 miles or a non-rental at 46,000 miles, I'd assume the non-rental would give me fewer problems in the short term and probably make it to a higher mileage in the end.
Still better than the proverbial $500 Civic with 250,000 miles, 7 owners, and 3 accidents, but not great vehicles to own by any stretch of the imagination.
Still better than the proverbial $500 Civic with 250,000 miles, 7 owners, and 3 accidents, but not great vehicles to own by any stretch of the imagination.
This, rental car is a car driven roughly, in mud, in rocks, with rash driving, rarely serviced or poorly serviced, poorly driven, in potholes, or quick acceleration or quick braking can not be further than truth
How many times one rents a car for personal use v/s on official use or business use? Business use is way higher than personal use. Most of the people who rent it for business use, are reporting to their boss or some kind of supervisor; & if they thrash car, car company reports/charges damages, it will come back to the person who drove it. So, no, a majority of renters don't beat cars because they still will be on hook for damages.
How many regular rentals need premium? None. Only exotic rentals might. Most of the rentals are run of the mill Toyota,Hyundai, Mitsubishi, mid size or mid range; the cars which are most of the time good for everyone. None of them needs premium. Although, this fuel thing exists. When I used to rent, I used to buy the cheapest fuel at any cheapest station. Now in own car,I go by only Shell Regular.
Rental are new, & new cars are covered bumper to bumper for about 36000, transmission till 60,000.
Yes, rental gets different drivers, but so do to some degree of non rental (family, friends, not common but still not zero).
So, as stated above,a 36,000 miles in a rental is not much different than same in a non rental.
In my opinion; there is a similar set of drivers who dont care for their own car, & almost most of them will not care for rental or friendly loaned too. People race their own cars, people floor their own cars.
My personal experience; my used car came with all shop visit records; verifiable, from Ford's system. Yes, it had about 4000 miles more than projected 7 years 150,000 miles on projected line, but that gap is getting less everyday with my moderate use (1000miles a month).
Rentals are beaten is a personal opinion. Any car can come out beaten. People who beat cars don't care if they rent it or own it. But beating a rental car might bite back quickly instead of beating one's own car.
How many times one rents a car for personal use v/s on official use or business use? Business use is way higher than personal use. Most of the people who rent it for business use, are reporting to their boss or some kind of supervisor; & if they thrash car, car company reports/charges damages, it will come back to the person who drove it. So, no, a majority of renters don't beat cars because they still will be on hook for damages.
How many regular rentals need premium? None. Only exotic rentals might. Most of the rentals are run of the mill Toyota,Hyundai, Mitsubishi, mid size or mid range; the cars which are most of the time good for everyone. None of them needs premium. Although, this fuel thing exists. When I used to rent, I used to buy the cheapest fuel at any cheapest station. Now in own car,I go by only Shell Regular.
Rental are new, & new cars are covered bumper to bumper for about 36000, transmission till 60,000.
Yes, rental gets different drivers, but so do to some degree of non rental (family, friends, not common but still not zero).
So, as stated above,a 36,000 miles in a rental is not much different than same in a non rental.
In my opinion; there is a similar set of drivers who dont care for their own car, & almost most of them will not care for rental or friendly loaned too. People race their own cars, people floor their own cars.
My personal experience; my used car came with all shop visit records; verifiable, from Ford's system. Yes, it had about 4000 miles more than projected 7 years 150,000 miles on projected line, but that gap is getting less everyday with my moderate use (1000miles a month).
Rentals are beaten is a personal opinion. Any car can come out beaten. People who beat cars don't care if they rent it or own it. But beating a rental car might bite back quickly instead of beating one's own car.
I think you read "beaten" literally. Nobody is saying people bounce off other cars and grind railings in the rentals. It's just rentals get more abuse: no break-in, often loaded with multiple people and luggage, door slammed, left under sun, small issues are not taken care off and develop etc. Not to mention they are already the special trims with all kinds of price cutting done from the factory.
Other than the "no break-in" all of that is perfectly normal car usage.
Exactly, you won't be changed for any damage doing this to a rental (nor you will be changed for not following the break in procedure).
Respectfully, this was in original comment:
> renters beat them up because they don't care
&
> beaters and sent those to the junk yard.
Still, all of the above also gets applied to owned cars too. People use cars for multiple people; people slam doors, majority of personal cars have no garage, small issues and negligence.
Newer cars (rentals or not) have factory warranty, where service center takes care of minor issues without even asking.
I respect your opinion that rentals are bad than owned cars, other things like mileage same; but my opinion & experience is, people will be bad drivers, be it their own car or rental; & even bad drivers will be a bit more careful with a rental because chances of them paying for it immediately financially is more than paying for damages to their own car.
> renters beat them up because they don't care
&
> beaters and sent those to the junk yard.
Still, all of the above also gets applied to owned cars too. People use cars for multiple people; people slam doors, majority of personal cars have no garage, small issues and negligence.
Newer cars (rentals or not) have factory warranty, where service center takes care of minor issues without even asking.
I respect your opinion that rentals are bad than owned cars, other things like mileage same; but my opinion & experience is, people will be bad drivers, be it their own car or rental; & even bad drivers will be a bit more careful with a rental because chances of them paying for it immediately financially is more than paying for damages to their own car.
You quoted my comment that people replaced beaters they had with the rentals they bought, I figure you read it as the rentals are also beaters? That was not my meaning, if I thought it's an ambiguous statement I'd try to phrase it differently.
:-) oh ok. In the I would add my personal experience (might not be the majority of people who buy rental), I bought a rental from Enterprise because of no haggle price, factory warranty, low age, highest possible trim & about 10% cheaper than used car dealerships where I had to play & dance the negotiation dance; all this just pre covid.
I was an Enterprise rental customer for about 7 years before that, renting a car about 2-3 times, not preplanned; & decision based on rental cost & availability, flexible dates.
I was an Enterprise rental customer for about 7 years before that, renting a car about 2-3 times, not preplanned; & decision based on rental cost & availability, flexible dates.
What do you mean by "highest possible trim"? You know that rentals are special low cost trim and it's possible to get a much better trim when buying a car made for retail sales, right?
I mean my personal purchase is everything a retail highest trim offered, same trim name, mechanical, electronics, accessories, brochure, warranty. Not all rentals fit into same mould, rental companies do have basic trim, mid trim & high trim of same models based on their negotiation with manufacturer/dealer, prices & many other things.
Other trims were also available.
Other trims were also available.
I see, you mean trim literally, like "Camry XSE"? Usually people say "highest trim" to mean "loaded", "with all the options" etc.
rental cars get treated like absolute crap
This is the conventional wisdom, but is it actually true? Anytime I've rented a car, I've handled it like a virgin princess because I know any scuff is coming out of my hide. My own car, hell, rub it up against the concrete barrier for all I care. That is a vehicle I would not want to buy on the used market.
This is the conventional wisdom, but is it actually true? Anytime I've rented a car, I've handled it like a virgin princess because I know any scuff is coming out of my hide. My own car, hell, rub it up against the concrete barrier for all I care. That is a vehicle I would not want to buy on the used market.
Purely anecdotal, but I notice my family members drive the cars a lot “harder” in terms of top speed, “jack rabbit starts” and braking more intensely than usual. I suppose it’s a combination of not being used to driving a car with such different weight and power, coupled with a more carefree attitude that being on vacation gives. We joking call it “vacation driving”.
Why would the renter be changing the oil?
I don't get it. If the article is true, then we shouldn't see any cars for sale by enterprise or hertz. What am I missing?
I have not read the article, but enterprisecarsales.com has about 7000 cars for sale; no filter, nationwide. Doesn't look like a big number; but car rental companies sold a ton of their fleet on the onset of covid too.
The cars with extensive damage or accidents, any bad mark on carfax goes to wholesale auctions. These are just the ones near end of mileage or age warranty.
The news, the hype, & the reality too contributed to the car sales. I am not in market, but still I see now the 2/3 year used car prices almost very near to their new counterpart, even on enterprise, compared to dealer websites for new cars.
The cars with extensive damage or accidents, any bad mark on carfax goes to wholesale auctions. These are just the ones near end of mileage or age warranty.
The news, the hype, & the reality too contributed to the car sales. I am not in market, but still I see now the 2/3 year used car prices almost very near to their new counterpart, even on enterprise, compared to dealer websites for new cars.
From the article, rental companies would not keep cars beyond 40-50k miles, hardly a couple of notches above bottom.
They sold them at a steep discount on the open market and presumably consumers desperate for a car at a good deal scooped them up.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2020/06/19/hertz-e...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2020/06/19/hertz-e...
> Those cars went somewhere
The driveways of people who couldn't buy new cars because #ChipShortage.
The driveways of people who couldn't buy new cars because #ChipShortage.
> Am I misunderstanding?
Cars disappear over time (they age, get in accidents, etc.) Due to production issues, the replacement construction of cars has dropped dramatically. The rental companies decided to get rid of their buffer with the expectation they would not be used during the pandemic. (Plus, rental companies age out cars naturally)
However, given the limited new cars, they have not rebuilt their fleet as fast as possible.
Cars disappear over time (they age, get in accidents, etc.) Due to production issues, the replacement construction of cars has dropped dramatically. The rental companies decided to get rid of their buffer with the expectation they would not be used during the pandemic. (Plus, rental companies age out cars naturally)
However, given the limited new cars, they have not rebuilt their fleet as fast as possible.
The car companies did the same, but what they did was cancel their slots for chip production while having little chip inventory.
So yeah, the root is back to the car companies. The rental car companies probably would have been dealing with a much smaller problem from the overall car demand increase from their sell-off if the car companies had maintained their production capacities of their supply chains.
So yeah, the root is back to the car companies. The rental car companies probably would have been dealing with a much smaller problem from the overall car demand increase from their sell-off if the car companies had maintained their production capacities of their supply chains.
Demand drivers:
Regular fleet replacement of crashed/old cars
+ cars for people who used to take public transport
+ cars for people moving from city to suburbs/ country
+ strong economy/household wealth increasing demand
Supply: - production curtailments (early COVID) - limited production (supply chain issues / chip shortage)
= demand exceeding supply
Supply: - production curtailments (early COVID) - limited production (supply chain issues / chip shortage)
= demand exceeding supply
Supply of cars, both new and used, is severely constrained, and the sell off from rental companies didn't make a dent in that.
Right now, I know of dealerships that are selling new cars for ABOVE MSRP. I have gotten a half dozen offers from my local dealership to buy back the used truck they sold me for more than they had sold it to me for.
Right now, I know of dealerships that are selling new cars for ABOVE MSRP. I have gotten a half dozen offers from my local dealership to buy back the used truck they sold me for more than they had sold it to me for.
I made money on my model 3 from just a year ownership. It’s wild.
Wild indeed, and unsustainable. There's going to be a correction.
What will the correction look like? It almost has to look like the price of cars crashing, doesn't it? It will start with new cars being overproduced, dropping in price, then used cars dropping.
2023 might be a good time to buy a car, if you can hold on until then...
What will the correction look like? It almost has to look like the price of cars crashing, doesn't it? It will start with new cars being overproduced, dropping in price, then used cars dropping.
2023 might be a good time to buy a car, if you can hold on until then...
Same with the housing market. I cashed in this last month on my house and just going to wait out a correction. Totally not sustainable.
[deleted]
sounds like shorting the market, which is tough because the market usually goes up. Even if you're right in assessing it's overvalued, if it doesn't crash in a reasonable amount of time, the bottom might still be higher than what you sold at.
>What will the correction look like? It almost has to look like the price of cars crashing
I really hope this happens harder/faster than inflation just so we get a couple years free of morons on the internet screeching about how their 4Runner holds value.
I really hope this happens harder/faster than inflation just so we get a couple years free of morons on the internet screeching about how their 4Runner holds value.
Just rented a car and it was as cheap and easy as it was pre covid.
Use costcotravel.com
Use costcotravel.com
I don't miss the old fashioned car rental companies since I use my local non-profit car sharing organisation.
I just use my phone and I get to drive a modern EV for a very affordable price without stress. No human contact needed.
I just use my phone and I get to drive a modern EV for a very affordable price without stress. No human contact needed.
Website?
The non profit one is https://bilkollektivet.no/
You also have Vy which is owned by the Norwegian state : https://www.vy.no/alt-om-reisen/andre-transportmidler/vybil
And then nabobil.no or hyre.no in the for profit side.
You also have Vy which is owned by the Norwegian state : https://www.vy.no/alt-om-reisen/andre-transportmidler/vybil
And then nabobil.no or hyre.no in the for profit side.
As a systems guy, I find this situation quite interesting in the way in which it exposed interlocks in the car rental pipeline that were previously not visible.
What I hadn't appreciated was that Car Rental companies had constructed a model where they bought new cars, rented them for a couple of years, and then resold them. The car would depreciate of course but as a bulk car buyer they got the cars at a discount on dealer cost because, well they bought more than the average dealer did. So when they depreciated they didn't lose as much value as you and I might experience if we bought a car, held it for two years, and resold it to a dealer (worst case) or another buyer (best case).
So the rental agency simply tracked how much the car would "lose" in value over its working lifetime, plus the cost of needed maintenance (generally relatively low), and offset that with income of renting it out. So the math was something like (making up numbers here) $5,000 of depreciation loss against say 400 rental days at $50/day or $20,000 of rental income. Say $1000 for maintenance during those 2 years and you've got $14,000 of "gross income" into the company, per car to pay employees and operating costs etc.
Now this makes sense and it is a fine business model, but an interesting quirk is that revenue is directly proportional to the number of 'working' cars you have out there bringing in the bucks. More cars, more income. And if you buy the car on credit there is an interest expense sure but you don't use up working capital to bulk up your fleet and boost your income.
As a result, car rental companies were carrying a HUGE amount of debt pre-pandemic which was all in car investments.
Then BOOM, the black swan of a pandemic hit and air travel stopped for all intents and purposes and now rental car companies are sitting on fleets of cars where they have to make the monthly payment on the debt but those cars aren't earning any income. This burns money in a hurry! So they did the only thing they could do, and sold off their fleets for the most part so that they could retire all that debt. Some, like Hertz, were already in Chapter 11 bankruptcy when they did that. Late 2020 was an excellent time to buy a car from one of the rental companies because they were really motivated to get them off their balance sheets.
And this then is the fun part. So the pandemic also put a huge blip in the supply chain. And since every single car company had switched to "just in time" manufacturing where they don't stock parts to make cars, they expect a smooth flow of those parts from the supply chain to feed their assembly lines, had to stop making cars. They had no parts. What is more, the humans in the pipeline like truck drivers, container crane operators, container ship crews, freight forwarding staff, Etc. were quarantining or not working because of the pandemic risk and those are jobs you cannot do "remotely" no matter how much you might want to. So the supply of new cars dried up, and won't untwist until the entire chain is back up and running at capacity again.
So now the pandemic is "less scary" because smart people have vaccinated themselves and they start traveling again. And those people want to rent cars. Which is great for rental car companies, except they cannot rebuild their fleets because there aren't any cars to buy.
And this adds the second fun twist, if you bought a car new in 2019 (as I did), and it is the kind of car rental companies might rent (which mine is), you get letters from the dealer in 2021 offering to buy it back from you for more than you paid for it!
What is more, when you see all those cars that are going to be 'totalled' by the insurance company because they were under water in the southern part of the US or on the east coast, those cars used to be sold for pennies on the dollar in "salvage sales" in which salvage dealers would recover parts and/or do enough repairs to resell them with a salvage title. The bidding for those cars is much more intense given the demand by rental car companies for stock, any stock, to boost their fleets.
It is a remarkable example of a system where the parts are interconnected in non-obvious ways that has a non-intuitive response to shocks to the system. As with most "emergent" systems like this one though, sending a shock through it does two things; it illuminates these previously unseen inter dependencies, and it tends to kill off weak players.
What I hadn't appreciated was that Car Rental companies had constructed a model where they bought new cars, rented them for a couple of years, and then resold them. The car would depreciate of course but as a bulk car buyer they got the cars at a discount on dealer cost because, well they bought more than the average dealer did. So when they depreciated they didn't lose as much value as you and I might experience if we bought a car, held it for two years, and resold it to a dealer (worst case) or another buyer (best case).
So the rental agency simply tracked how much the car would "lose" in value over its working lifetime, plus the cost of needed maintenance (generally relatively low), and offset that with income of renting it out. So the math was something like (making up numbers here) $5,000 of depreciation loss against say 400 rental days at $50/day or $20,000 of rental income. Say $1000 for maintenance during those 2 years and you've got $14,000 of "gross income" into the company, per car to pay employees and operating costs etc.
Now this makes sense and it is a fine business model, but an interesting quirk is that revenue is directly proportional to the number of 'working' cars you have out there bringing in the bucks. More cars, more income. And if you buy the car on credit there is an interest expense sure but you don't use up working capital to bulk up your fleet and boost your income.
As a result, car rental companies were carrying a HUGE amount of debt pre-pandemic which was all in car investments.
Then BOOM, the black swan of a pandemic hit and air travel stopped for all intents and purposes and now rental car companies are sitting on fleets of cars where they have to make the monthly payment on the debt but those cars aren't earning any income. This burns money in a hurry! So they did the only thing they could do, and sold off their fleets for the most part so that they could retire all that debt. Some, like Hertz, were already in Chapter 11 bankruptcy when they did that. Late 2020 was an excellent time to buy a car from one of the rental companies because they were really motivated to get them off their balance sheets.
And this then is the fun part. So the pandemic also put a huge blip in the supply chain. And since every single car company had switched to "just in time" manufacturing where they don't stock parts to make cars, they expect a smooth flow of those parts from the supply chain to feed their assembly lines, had to stop making cars. They had no parts. What is more, the humans in the pipeline like truck drivers, container crane operators, container ship crews, freight forwarding staff, Etc. were quarantining or not working because of the pandemic risk and those are jobs you cannot do "remotely" no matter how much you might want to. So the supply of new cars dried up, and won't untwist until the entire chain is back up and running at capacity again.
So now the pandemic is "less scary" because smart people have vaccinated themselves and they start traveling again. And those people want to rent cars. Which is great for rental car companies, except they cannot rebuild their fleets because there aren't any cars to buy.
And this adds the second fun twist, if you bought a car new in 2019 (as I did), and it is the kind of car rental companies might rent (which mine is), you get letters from the dealer in 2021 offering to buy it back from you for more than you paid for it!
What is more, when you see all those cars that are going to be 'totalled' by the insurance company because they were under water in the southern part of the US or on the east coast, those cars used to be sold for pennies on the dollar in "salvage sales" in which salvage dealers would recover parts and/or do enough repairs to resell them with a salvage title. The bidding for those cars is much more intense given the demand by rental car companies for stock, any stock, to boost their fleets.
It is a remarkable example of a system where the parts are interconnected in non-obvious ways that has a non-intuitive response to shocks to the system. As with most "emergent" systems like this one though, sending a shock through it does two things; it illuminates these previously unseen inter dependencies, and it tends to kill off weak players.
This is the same reason airlines are always going bankrupt, and why many pieces of the economy are quite fragile: over optimization.
In the short run, a lot of leverage makes sense, it helps you get a leg up, but if there's a Black Swan, then you're out.
It's a tricky thing because when a business fundamentally depends on those factors and it's hard to differentiate otherwise, well, it's just not fun. You're playing with fate instead of 'going things better'.
I wish they would innovate harder and make things more streamlined and easier. Renting a car is still a bit of a pain, the Car2Go model was nice, but they left my county sadly.
In the short run, a lot of leverage makes sense, it helps you get a leg up, but if there's a Black Swan, then you're out.
It's a tricky thing because when a business fundamentally depends on those factors and it's hard to differentiate otherwise, well, it's just not fun. You're playing with fate instead of 'going things better'.
I wish they would innovate harder and make things more streamlined and easier. Renting a car is still a bit of a pain, the Car2Go model was nice, but they left my county sadly.
> In the short run, a lot of leverage makes sense, it helps you get a leg up, but if there's a Black Swan, then you're out.
Its probable to me that no steady state exists - that in between each black swan event, given sufficient spacing, the companies that most highly leverage their financials/JIT pipeline will out compete the ones that behave more "rationally" in the interstitial period. The higher coefficient on the exponent just wins (growth maximizing into an empty market) even if it kills every company that does it.
Its probable to me that no steady state exists - that in between each black swan event, given sufficient spacing, the companies that most highly leverage their financials/JIT pipeline will out compete the ones that behave more "rationally" in the interstitial period. The higher coefficient on the exponent just wins (growth maximizing into an empty market) even if it kills every company that does it.
We rented one just yesterday in Germany and it was rather streamlined. Used booking.com. The only thing that made no sense is that they were still harping about needing a credit card. (Just put a bigger deposit on a debit card. Oh and the clerk made an exemption for us.) Pickup administration was 5+ minutes, return was less than 1 minute.
the credit card requirement is because they use a deposit lock instead of a withdraw. which does not work with a debit card.
most german providers use it, because it's less burocratic. taking money for a deposit is generally easier to handle for them.
I'm not even sure if they would be able to hold deposits without a 3rd party that has a license for that.
This is why everyone is afraid of major sudden changes. We know that our industrial and commerce systems are nicely oiled to deliver constant outputs, and people like me are afraid that changing any part of it may trigger a cascade of bankruptcies of companies of a certain type, which in turn could provoke a famine somewhere else.
Imagine if all those grains stayed on their fields, it would trigger both parasites to develop where those fields are, corrupting entire valleys for years, while not either being able to feed the people they were aimed for. Which is the food equivalent of your car example.
If anything, the Covid proved to me that the world is much less oiled and tuned for some constant economic circuits than I feared. It is in fact quite reliable, if we don’t mention the debt we’ve put our children in.
Imagine if all those grains stayed on their fields, it would trigger both parasites to develop where those fields are, corrupting entire valleys for years, while not either being able to feed the people they were aimed for. Which is the food equivalent of your car example.
If anything, the Covid proved to me that the world is much less oiled and tuned for some constant economic circuits than I feared. It is in fact quite reliable, if we don’t mention the debt we’ve put our children in.
Early in the pandemic there was a massive potato surplus. Potato farms in my state were literally giving away potatoes.
Unfortunately, I didn't find out about it until too late. Which is unfortunate; that could have been the perfect opportunity to create a baked potato delivery startup. I would have called it "Tuber".
Unfortunately, I didn't find out about it until too late. Which is unfortunate; that could have been the perfect opportunity to create a baked potato delivery startup. I would have called it "Tuber".
Very nice analysis, thank you for posting it.
I can't help but notice how weakened this entire process is as a result of revolving around money. In terms of manpower and expertise, none of these changes really need to happen, but since everyone is chasing a buck as a matter of survival, a bunch of stupid stuff occurs.
I don't have any brilliant solutions to bring about the Roddenbury-style economy, but it is infuriating to look at a scale problem you describe and trace the major causes back to the money. Are the cars going to vanish if the debts aren't paid for a year? Are the physical Hertz buildings going to crumble if the banks aren't satisfied? No, currency changing hands has nothing do with reality passively changing shape! And here we are, watching people sell off rental car fleets because assets will be seized unless the money changes hands in the right way.
I don't have any brilliant solutions to bring about the Roddenbury-style economy, but it is infuriating to look at a scale problem you describe and trace the major causes back to the money. Are the cars going to vanish if the debts aren't paid for a year? Are the physical Hertz buildings going to crumble if the banks aren't satisfied? No, currency changing hands has nothing do with reality passively changing shape! And here we are, watching people sell off rental car fleets because assets will be seized unless the money changes hands in the right way.
Money is not really the root cause though, any more than tcp/ip is meaningful interpersonal communication. It's just a signal.
They sold their fleets because other people (the buyers) wanted them more, in the short term. Now they want to buy because they want a fleet again. It's a time horizon problem, or perhaps an uncertainty problem - how were they supposed to know how long the pandemic would last? Or perhaps a premature optimization problem because the business was predicated on a pandemic not happening. But I don't see it as a money problem, any more than a tcp/ip problem.
They sold their fleets because other people (the buyers) wanted them more, in the short term. Now they want to buy because they want a fleet again. It's a time horizon problem, or perhaps an uncertainty problem - how were they supposed to know how long the pandemic would last? Or perhaps a premature optimization problem because the business was predicated on a pandemic not happening. But I don't see it as a money problem, any more than a tcp/ip problem.
I don't know, if you look at "money" as the wider financial system, then maybe it is a root cause.
Another commentator downthread mentions the fragility vs efficiency tradeoff, and that's certainly something encouraged by financializing the economy. By making it possible to easily switch between stocks and flows (capital/income in this case pay in full / pay debt) and encouraging whatever makes firms look good in the short term, the financial system helps cause this kind of thing.
We get towers built higher but not necessarily safer.
Another commentator downthread mentions the fragility vs efficiency tradeoff, and that's certainly something encouraged by financializing the economy. By making it possible to easily switch between stocks and flows (capital/income in this case pay in full / pay debt) and encouraging whatever makes firms look good in the short term, the financial system helps cause this kind of thing.
We get towers built higher but not necessarily safer.
Sure, I agree having a financial system predicated on growth causes a whole lotta problems. I guess I define "money" more narrowly as we could use it as a component in a very different system.
The financial system is very efficient, and allows tuning and scaling to an extent never before possible. That allows folks to squeeze pennies or build leveraged business models that previously would have not been possible.
Which is great, when things fit the model (the stocks or bonds involved pay retirees longer, make people wealthier, etc), but also allow people to build much higher castles of cards than they previously could have before something toppled them over.
Panics, crashes, defaulting on debt, etc. have been around as long (and probably longer) than we have historical records, but wow does the modern system take the cake for scale!
Which is great, when things fit the model (the stocks or bonds involved pay retirees longer, make people wealthier, etc), but also allow people to build much higher castles of cards than they previously could have before something toppled them over.
Panics, crashes, defaulting on debt, etc. have been around as long (and probably longer) than we have historical records, but wow does the modern system take the cake for scale!
[deleted]
It's a whole system of problems but it's not a hugely complicated system, at least not compared to all the bandaids that are necessary if you do not address the problems at their root.
https://youtu.be/ZFRVfXeIaek
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkQn56Dtslk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5l_Oeg6kMo
https://youtu.be/mhr4JGbozTA
https://youtu.be/ZFRVfXeIaek
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkQn56Dtslk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5l_Oeg6kMo
https://youtu.be/mhr4JGbozTA
> It's just a signal.
I think quacked's point was that sometimes it's not a very good signaling system. Neither is TCP/IP in some cases, and sometimes neither are cytokines (to use a biology example). These are all evolved systems, to some degree; maybe they're the best we can hope for, but we should still keep an eye out for "version 2.0".
I think quacked's point was that sometimes it's not a very good signaling system. Neither is TCP/IP in some cases, and sometimes neither are cytokines (to use a biology example). These are all evolved systems, to some degree; maybe they're the best we can hope for, but we should still keep an eye out for "version 2.0".
It's not even that I think it's realistic to expect version 2.0, although I would really like that. It's more that it's impossible to get many people to even admit that the current system is flawed in a way that is technically controllable.
It is insane to me that we all have to shrug and admit that "well, we can't fix X problem because the money's not there" over and over again, when we have all of the labor hours and intellectual capital to do whatever we want as a collective species organism. With the right coordination, we could make every city look like a Miyazaki lake town. Or Disneyland. Or an exact copy of ancient Rome. We could scan every person alive every year and see whether or not they've got cancer. We could clean every river and every lake. We could send everyone a Nintendo Switch. That whole "bullshit jobs" memo gets circulated on HN all the time; how much of us could do actually cool shit if we didn't have to worry about paying for other people to help maintain society for us? I don't know, but it sure is frustrating watching Hertz sell off their fleet because their board is more worried about its share price than it is about whether or not Hertz, a car rental company, can rent out cars. (And I'm not blaming them for it- they're deadlocked in the same standoff everyone else is.)
It is insane to me that we all have to shrug and admit that "well, we can't fix X problem because the money's not there" over and over again, when we have all of the labor hours and intellectual capital to do whatever we want as a collective species organism. With the right coordination, we could make every city look like a Miyazaki lake town. Or Disneyland. Or an exact copy of ancient Rome. We could scan every person alive every year and see whether or not they've got cancer. We could clean every river and every lake. We could send everyone a Nintendo Switch. That whole "bullshit jobs" memo gets circulated on HN all the time; how much of us could do actually cool shit if we didn't have to worry about paying for other people to help maintain society for us? I don't know, but it sure is frustrating watching Hertz sell off their fleet because their board is more worried about its share price than it is about whether or not Hertz, a car rental company, can rent out cars. (And I'm not blaming them for it- they're deadlocked in the same standoff everyone else is.)
(Gp here) I for one certainly admit flaws in the system! ...maybe we're splitting hairs over whether that system is called money or something bigger.
One of my research interests is trying to make a contribution to what you call version 2.0, through better measures of subjective wellbeing.
One of my research interests is trying to make a contribution to what you call version 2.0, through better measures of subjective wellbeing.
> it sure is frustrating watching Hertz sell off their fleet because their board is more worried about its share price than it is about whether or not Hertz
More like worried about bankruptcy and going out of business.
More like worried about bankruptcy and going out of business.
Isn't is more of an existential issue?
If you're a rental company, looking at ~$0 income for the next year, and the need to pay for, maintain, and garage their car fleets, then you're top priority is to shore up the balance sheet and keep your corp afloat. What the car buyer's market will be in 18mo is a more distant concern.
If you're a rental company, looking at ~$0 income for the next year, and the need to pay for, maintain, and garage their car fleets, then you're top priority is to shore up the balance sheet and keep your corp afloat. What the car buyer's market will be in 18mo is a more distant concern.
To a point though.
Selling your only operating assets just because they're not operating at the moment seems pretty short sighted.
Creditors may have forced their hand a degree, but to me it feels like a factory selling their machinery because demand is down this year.
If you're going to sell all your cars as a rental company, might as well liquidate your whole company and close up shop.
Selling your only operating assets just because they're not operating at the moment seems pretty short sighted.
Creditors may have forced their hand a degree, but to me it feels like a factory selling their machinery because demand is down this year.
If you're going to sell all your cars as a rental company, might as well liquidate your whole company and close up shop.
The whole issue is the general prudence of taking on debt. It's a question of efficiency. Too little and you miss out on opportunities to produce and grow, too much and you're super-fragile.
Over-indebted companies is a very Anglo (US/UK) and Japanese thing. There are plenty of companies in continental Europe (Germany, Italy, France) who operate with much less debt than their US counterparts. A good example is Aldi. They have no debt on their balance sheet anywhere, not even for inventory. By the standards of American business culture, that is 100% absurd.
I'm really not sure who's right. It's optimization vs survival.
Over-indebted companies is a very Anglo (US/UK) and Japanese thing. There are plenty of companies in continental Europe (Germany, Italy, France) who operate with much less debt than their US counterparts. A good example is Aldi. They have no debt on their balance sheet anywhere, not even for inventory. By the standards of American business culture, that is 100% absurd.
I'm really not sure who's right. It's optimization vs survival.
> "A good example is Aldi. They have no debt on their balance sheet anywhere, not even for inventory. By the standards of American business culture, that is 100% absurd."
Firstly, Aldi is a private company (actually two entirely separate private companies, ALDI Nord and ALDI Süd, who share the brand name). So AFAIK they do not publish annual financial reports like a public company would be required to do. So how do you know there's no debt on their balance sheet?
Companies House filings for ALDI Süd's UK subsidiary, ALDI Stores Limited, do show debts and interest expenses so it's certainly not correct to say they "have no debt on their balance sheet anywhere"[1]
[1] https://craft.co/aldi-uk/metrics
Firstly, Aldi is a private company (actually two entirely separate private companies, ALDI Nord and ALDI Süd, who share the brand name). So AFAIK they do not publish annual financial reports like a public company would be required to do. So how do you know there's no debt on their balance sheet?
Companies House filings for ALDI Süd's UK subsidiary, ALDI Stores Limited, do show debts and interest expenses so it's certainly not correct to say they "have no debt on their balance sheet anywhere"[1]
[1] https://craft.co/aldi-uk/metrics
There's also a question of just how fragile they truly were.
Sure the pandemic messed them up, but that was really a once in a generation at most event. If thats what it took to sink your businessz I wouldn't call it very fragile.
I also think they and their creditors made poor decisions.
Selling your only operating assets in order to balance the books is a suicidal move no matter the industry. It's selling off your only way of making money. It's like a software engineer selling their workstation when times are tough.
Sure the pandemic messed them up, but that was really a once in a generation at most event. If thats what it took to sink your businessz I wouldn't call it very fragile.
I also think they and their creditors made poor decisions.
Selling your only operating assets in order to balance the books is a suicidal move no matter the industry. It's selling off your only way of making money. It's like a software engineer selling their workstation when times are tough.
dying later is always better than dying early. And may be there's some miracle that could help that you wouldn't get if you died early.
Not always the case.
Dying now and cashing out is better than burning money for a few years and cashing out for less then.
They paid down their debt on the cars, but they have lots of other financial obligations and operating costs that will be ongoing if they continue to operate, and they now have a hugely diminished capacity to make revenue.
Dying now and cashing out is better than burning money for a few years and cashing out for less then.
They paid down their debt on the cars, but they have lots of other financial obligations and operating costs that will be ongoing if they continue to operate, and they now have a hugely diminished capacity to make revenue.
The problem with climate change is that 'once in a generation' events are now happening more like once a decade - I would not expect this to be the last global pandemic causing major whiplash in demand and supply in our lifetimes.
I'm honestly curious to find out whether most of us will even still be driving cars powered by fossil fuels by the time the next pandemic hits - as tech goes, it's only been around for a few generations. People will find other transit solutions if cars themselves get phased out. Or maybe we'll still have 'cars' with something dramatically different going on under the hood that car owners of today would barely recognize.
I'm honestly curious to find out whether most of us will even still be driving cars powered by fossil fuels by the time the next pandemic hits - as tech goes, it's only been around for a few generations. People will find other transit solutions if cars themselves get phased out. Or maybe we'll still have 'cars' with something dramatically different going on under the hood that car owners of today would barely recognize.
> I can't help but notice how weakened this entire process is as a result of revolving around money. In terms of manpower and expertise, none of these changes really need to happen, but since everyone is chasing a buck as a matter of survival, a bunch of stupid stuff occurs.
Resiliency against interruptions costs a lot of money: warehouses to store parts, logistics to rotate these parts, paying suppliers for these parts earlier than the parts are needed, waiting until you have enough cash to buy stuff outright...
The core point is: governments, businesses and individuals have historically always had these costs - but at least the Western world has been enjoying a couple decades without major interruptions like war on the home territory, oil crises or the looming threat of the Cold War getting hot (and causing interruptions as a result), which means everyone got incredibly complacent. After all, when there are no interruptions to expect in the near term, why spend cash in the near term to guard against them?
And so, when Corona hit, everyone got hit.
> Are the physical Hertz buildings going to crumble if the banks aren't satisfied? No, currency changing hands has nothing do with reality passively changing shape!
The existing buildings may not go crumbling, but planned/under-construction buildings are getting put on hold when the banks' income stream vanishes and as a result of that, in turn, the workers can't work, ... <insert recursive ripple effects here>.
Resiliency against interruptions costs a lot of money: warehouses to store parts, logistics to rotate these parts, paying suppliers for these parts earlier than the parts are needed, waiting until you have enough cash to buy stuff outright...
The core point is: governments, businesses and individuals have historically always had these costs - but at least the Western world has been enjoying a couple decades without major interruptions like war on the home territory, oil crises or the looming threat of the Cold War getting hot (and causing interruptions as a result), which means everyone got incredibly complacent. After all, when there are no interruptions to expect in the near term, why spend cash in the near term to guard against them?
And so, when Corona hit, everyone got hit.
> Are the physical Hertz buildings going to crumble if the banks aren't satisfied? No, currency changing hands has nothing do with reality passively changing shape!
The existing buildings may not go crumbling, but planned/under-construction buildings are getting put on hold when the banks' income stream vanishes and as a result of that, in turn, the workers can't work, ... <insert recursive ripple effects here>.
Right, I certainly don't disagree with your analysis, but your recursive ripple effects all aren't caused by physical laws, they're caused by people refusing to work because they can't guarantee that other people in turn will work for them, which is all that money is- a representation of a guarantee in exchanged goods or services.
In a theoretical closed-loop 3-person model, the farmer grows, the doctor treats, and the builder builds. The farmer can feed the other two, the doctor can treat the other two, and the builder can build for the other two, and in a micro-community they don't really need to pay each other. As we increase the number of people participating, the likelihood that each person would choose to work without being paid drops. That's why we see such degradation in economically affected areas; everyone could just work all day cleaning up, patching up buildings, etc. but they don't, because no one's paying them to do so.
I am not naive enough to believe that any amount of propaganda or state control could fix the money problem, but I am frustrated to be willing to participate in such a theoretical economy with no outlet for it besides helping people in whatever free time I have.
In a theoretical closed-loop 3-person model, the farmer grows, the doctor treats, and the builder builds. The farmer can feed the other two, the doctor can treat the other two, and the builder can build for the other two, and in a micro-community they don't really need to pay each other. As we increase the number of people participating, the likelihood that each person would choose to work without being paid drops. That's why we see such degradation in economically affected areas; everyone could just work all day cleaning up, patching up buildings, etc. but they don't, because no one's paying them to do so.
I am not naive enough to believe that any amount of propaganda or state control could fix the money problem, but I am frustrated to be willing to participate in such a theoretical economy with no outlet for it besides helping people in whatever free time I have.
I don't know man.... it actually seem rather smart to me.... Like the smartness of an organism trying to cope as well as it can with disruptions in the environment. What would you like to do it better without causing huge waste of resources? I am not sure there is much I can think of....
It's not money, it's efficiency. Too much efficiency results in a lack of resiliency.
Isn't the reason the shortages persits due to the chip shortage caused by a few non-financial disruptions to the highly concentrated chip makers, like a fire? How would barter or communism or whatever isn't money fix that? By being more wasteful all of the time?
Keep in mind this isn't really a serious problem. Cars still exist, and can even still be rented, they just smell a bit. That's it. Smelly cars. First world problems!
Keep in mind this isn't really a serious problem. Cars still exist, and can even still be rented, they just smell a bit. That's it. Smelly cars. First world problems!
> are the cars going to vanish if the debts aren't paid for a year?
No, but the retirees who depend on the income from bonds packaged from those debts will be screwed. Also, cars might not vanish but they do depreciate regardless of whether money exists. That's still a cost incurred by the rental company even though no money changes hands when it happens.
Ultimately the car companies were overleveraged and were forced to exit before their "positions" in cars became profitable. There's nothing short of the state propping you up that can solve that.
Even the Soviet Union had money and had to deal with economical realities. One of the reasons they collapsed was because of increasing grain production deficits causing an imbalance of trade. You can't legislate your way out of the market because the market's invisible hand will always show eventually, even if you can stave it off via state control of everything.
No, but the retirees who depend on the income from bonds packaged from those debts will be screwed. Also, cars might not vanish but they do depreciate regardless of whether money exists. That's still a cost incurred by the rental company even though no money changes hands when it happens.
Ultimately the car companies were overleveraged and were forced to exit before their "positions" in cars became profitable. There's nothing short of the state propping you up that can solve that.
Even the Soviet Union had money and had to deal with economical realities. One of the reasons they collapsed was because of increasing grain production deficits causing an imbalance of trade. You can't legislate your way out of the market because the market's invisible hand will always show eventually, even if you can stave it off via state control of everything.
Yeah, but the retirees depending on the income is just a second-order effect that's also screwed up due to money. Retirees don't depend on money changing hands, they depend on crops getting grown, shelter being refurbished (or built), and defense under the law. The only reason people agree to do all of those actions for the retirees is that money changes hands.
I'm not necessarily saying that I think money is a bug. It might be a feature. But the "market's invisible hand" relies on people being more motivated by their wealth stash than their behavior. If everyone chose to keep doing the same physical actions they're doing today except we stopped swapping money, nothing observable in reality would change; people would die at the same rate, food would be stored at the same rate, etc.
"The economy" is in reality a giant standoff where every member of the standoff would just stop maintaining society unless they get paid for it. The grocer could theoretically choose to continue to man the store 12 hours per day, and then the doctor could theoretically choose to treat the grocer when he gets sick, and the truck driver could theoretically choose to ship the medication from the plant to the hospital, and the floor worker could theoretically choose to...
I'm not necessarily saying that I think money is a bug. It might be a feature. But the "market's invisible hand" relies on people being more motivated by their wealth stash than their behavior. If everyone chose to keep doing the same physical actions they're doing today except we stopped swapping money, nothing observable in reality would change; people would die at the same rate, food would be stored at the same rate, etc.
"The economy" is in reality a giant standoff where every member of the standoff would just stop maintaining society unless they get paid for it. The grocer could theoretically choose to continue to man the store 12 hours per day, and then the doctor could theoretically choose to treat the grocer when he gets sick, and the truck driver could theoretically choose to ship the medication from the plant to the hospital, and the floor worker could theoretically choose to...
>notice how weakened this entire process is as a result of revolving around money
>not necessarily saying that I think money is a bug. It might be a feature.
Yup, looks to me like the problem is not the existence of money, rather its nonexistence.
Financial problems don't actually occur when there is no lack of money.
>not necessarily saying that I think money is a bug. It might be a feature.
Yup, looks to me like the problem is not the existence of money, rather its nonexistence.
Financial problems don't actually occur when there is no lack of money.
> But the "market's invisible hand" relies on people being more motivated by their wealth stash than their behavior.
Nobody has found a better way, though they often try.
> "The economy" is in reality a giant standoff where every member of the standoff would just stop maintaining society unless they get paid for it.
That's an immutable fact of human nature. Even cradle to grave propaganda doesn't change it. It's much better to swim with that current than against it.
Nobody has found a better way, though they often try.
> "The economy" is in reality a giant standoff where every member of the standoff would just stop maintaining society unless they get paid for it.
That's an immutable fact of human nature. Even cradle to grave propaganda doesn't change it. It's much better to swim with that current than against it.
> Nobody has found a better way, though they often try.
This I agree with.
> That's an immutable fact of human nature. Even cradle to grave propaganda doesn't change it.
This I disagree with. Past societies saw far more social cohesion at points than our modern one. Especially on certain smaller scales, people were more willing to assist one another in the act of remaining alive without being compensated financially.
For instance- many people now think it would be unreasonable to help a friend move without some form of reward (money, food, etc.) This sort of value exchange for reward would be considered disrespectful in many past cultures and even some present cultures. Unwillingness to work without immediate reward not an immutable fact of human nature.
This I agree with.
> That's an immutable fact of human nature. Even cradle to grave propaganda doesn't change it.
This I disagree with. Past societies saw far more social cohesion at points than our modern one. Especially on certain smaller scales, people were more willing to assist one another in the act of remaining alive without being compensated financially.
For instance- many people now think it would be unreasonable to help a friend move without some form of reward (money, food, etc.) This sort of value exchange for reward would be considered disrespectful in many past cultures and even some present cultures. Unwillingness to work without immediate reward not an immutable fact of human nature.
Helping out your friends and locals now and then is also normal human behavior. But it does not extend to running a society that way, and never has. It is rooted in building a network of mutual obligation, a common trait in small communities. It's not really considered a "reward" or payment.
> Unwillingness to work without immediate reward not an immutable fact of human nature.
Yeah, it is, as no society has managed to make that work as an organizing principle. Even the Israeli kibbutzen have failed. Altruism rarely extends beyond family and close friends, and even then, it isn't reliable.
> Unwillingness to work without immediate reward not an immutable fact of human nature.
Yeah, it is, as no society has managed to make that work as an organizing principle. Even the Israeli kibbutzen have failed. Altruism rarely extends beyond family and close friends, and even then, it isn't reliable.
Altruism basically means you are working for favors instead of money. However, people are much more likely to default on favors owed to you because it is harder to compare the value of one favor to another, and this creates opportunity to return a favor that is worth less than the one you were given.
The weird thing about reciprocity (exchanging favors) is the value of the favor is rarely considered. For example, the exchange of pizza for help in moving.
Of course, if you're too cheap over too long a period, people may stop doing favors for you.
Of course, if you're too cheap over too long a period, people may stop doing favors for you.
>” However, people are much more likely to default on favors owed to you”
I’ve never thought about it this way before, and it’s a pretty profound quote.
I’ve never thought about it this way before, and it’s a pretty profound quote.
Better ways have been found a long time ago in ancient egypt:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demurrage_%28currency%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demurrage_%28currency%29
The great thing about using ancient Egypt to support social theories is that there's no evidence there.
For example, we still don't know if the workers who build the pyramids were slaves or freemen. Kind of a big deal for that society.
For example, we still don't know if the workers who build the pyramids were slaves or freemen. Kind of a big deal for that society.
On the one hand, yes of course the economy is all about specialization and then exchanging the fruits of specialized production between people. This last can happen via money, or barter, or a dictator (benevolent or not) confiscating everything and redistributing it, or some mix of the above, and maybe other methods.
One of the hard problems here is what to specialize in and to what extent. This is a hard problem to solve even in a static economy, and even harder if circumstances keep changing...
The "standoff" description seems to assume a static economy. If circumstances change, maybe we as a society need a grocer for only 4 hours a day but could use an extra half-shift truck driver. But how to discover that?
One of the hard problems here is what to specialize in and to what extent. This is a hard problem to solve even in a static economy, and even harder if circumstances keep changing...
The "standoff" description seems to assume a static economy. If circumstances change, maybe we as a society need a grocer for only 4 hours a day but could use an extra half-shift truck driver. But how to discover that?
I have absolutely no idea how or even if that could be discovered, which is why my original comment was more about expressing frustration than offering a solution.
I do know that several things going on currently will make it more impossible to discover: increased financialization of commodities, outsourcing, destruction of culture via removal of differentiating markers, etc. If any society is going to discover the half-shift truck driver economy, they're going to be one that is almost entirely self-sustaining and committed to perpetuation of itself, not one that is leveraged up to the eyeballs, suffers from a total lack of manufacturing expertise within its component citizens, and relies on cheap foreign labor to make everything.
I do know that several things going on currently will make it more impossible to discover: increased financialization of commodities, outsourcing, destruction of culture via removal of differentiating markers, etc. If any society is going to discover the half-shift truck driver economy, they're going to be one that is almost entirely self-sustaining and committed to perpetuation of itself, not one that is leveraged up to the eyeballs, suffers from a total lack of manufacturing expertise within its component citizens, and relies on cheap foreign labor to make everything.
It seems like you're focusing on a loss of money as a "stick" (punishment) and saying we could ignore that and just keep operating as usual. But it's also the "carrot" (motivation) signalling the demand and value placed on the activity by others.
In the end, aren't all the money and ledgers are just a way to simplify the ridiculously complex trades required to make modern society work? We don't want to have to exchange sacks of rice and live chickens when we see the doctor and he doesn't want to have to get those chickens converted into barley or whatever it is the medical supply company owner wants this week.
If you remove this signal, you don't just remove a threat of stagnation. You also remove efficiency signals to curtail under-valued work. Just as easily, the participants could do other absurd things instead. The grocer could keep performing shelf-stocking actions while the shelves and back storage area are empty. The doctor could decide they prefer to drive around in an empty delivery truck, while the truck driver decides to sit in the clinic and talk to patients about the weather. Etc.
In the end, aren't all the money and ledgers are just a way to simplify the ridiculously complex trades required to make modern society work? We don't want to have to exchange sacks of rice and live chickens when we see the doctor and he doesn't want to have to get those chickens converted into barley or whatever it is the medical supply company owner wants this week.
If you remove this signal, you don't just remove a threat of stagnation. You also remove efficiency signals to curtail under-valued work. Just as easily, the participants could do other absurd things instead. The grocer could keep performing shelf-stocking actions while the shelves and back storage area are empty. The doctor could decide they prefer to drive around in an empty delivery truck, while the truck driver decides to sit in the clinic and talk to patients about the weather. Etc.
>You also remove efficiency signals to curtail under-valued work.
I'd argue that the typical diffuse ownership structures you find in most consumer-facing businesses today has the same effect, if not as absolute. The people who see the economic signals and they people with on-the-ground knowledge are split up: a sort of business logic hemispherectomy.
I'd argue that the typical diffuse ownership structures you find in most consumer-facing businesses today has the same effect, if not as absolute. The people who see the economic signals and they people with on-the-ground knowledge are split up: a sort of business logic hemispherectomy.
Money itself isn't the bug. It's the ability to abuse money to disconnect yourself from the real economy. How easy it is to abuse money depends on how it is designed. When people save money perishable goods like food are sitting on the shelves waiting to be bought, then money will outstay its welcome. The food is gone but the money is still there.
“Only money that goes out of date like a newspaper, rots like potatoes, rusts like iron, evaporates like ether, is capable of standing the test as an instrument for the exchange of potatoes, newspapers, iron and ether. For such money is not preferred to goods either by the purchaser or the seller. We then part with our goods for money only because we need the money as a means of exchange, not because we expect an advantage from possession of the money. So we must make money worse as a commodity if we wish to make it better as a medium of exchange." — Silvio Gesell, “The Natural Economic Order”
“Only money that goes out of date like a newspaper, rots like potatoes, rusts like iron, evaporates like ether, is capable of standing the test as an instrument for the exchange of potatoes, newspapers, iron and ether. For such money is not preferred to goods either by the purchaser or the seller. We then part with our goods for money only because we need the money as a means of exchange, not because we expect an advantage from possession of the money. So we must make money worse as a commodity if we wish to make it better as a medium of exchange." — Silvio Gesell, “The Natural Economic Order”
> make money worse as a commodity if we wish to make it better as a medium of exchange
This describes inflation, in so many words. That's why central banks targeting a low level inflation is an excellent idea - it makes people spend money, rather than save. Spending can include investment to stave off inflation's effects - which, in turn, makes for increases in productivity over all.
This describes inflation, in so many words. That's why central banks targeting a low level inflation is an excellent idea - it makes people spend money, rather than save. Spending can include investment to stave off inflation's effects - which, in turn, makes for increases in productivity over all.
Inflation incentivizes debt, debt leads to fragility, and then we're surprised when things break.
This is sort of a reply to several of your comments in this thread about how we could still do all the things we do if money didn't exist. Your point reminds me of something a co-worker once said; he pointed out that "profit" is another name for "inefficiency." That is, in another context or agnostic of value-judgements, the difference between input and output which forms "profit" would be looked at as an inefficiency or defect in any other system.
>No, but the retirees who depend on the income from bonds packaged from those debts will be screwed.
I agree that retirees are wholly dependent on others to work for them and therefore I recognize their right to save for retirement. However, if your investment/savings turn out to be worthless then that is on you. It's better to signal these failures as soon as possible so that people are aware of the risk.
Think about it this way. You acquire "healthcare coupons" during your working age and then all the businesses accepting "healthcare coupons" have shut down. The coupons are worthless. Yet when you replace "healthcare coupons" with money, people insist that even if there aren't enough workers to work in healthcare, that money must maintain its value and they should even be owed more than they saved even though there is nobody to provide those services. This is why inflation is a necessary evil. It tells you what's really going on in the world. People will present inflation as theft but the truth is that your money is losing its value because it should be losing its value.
Just because e.g. gold is free of inflation doesn't mean that there will be healthcare services waiting at the start of your retirement to accept that gold. It's just pure speculation.
I agree that retirees are wholly dependent on others to work for them and therefore I recognize their right to save for retirement. However, if your investment/savings turn out to be worthless then that is on you. It's better to signal these failures as soon as possible so that people are aware of the risk.
Think about it this way. You acquire "healthcare coupons" during your working age and then all the businesses accepting "healthcare coupons" have shut down. The coupons are worthless. Yet when you replace "healthcare coupons" with money, people insist that even if there aren't enough workers to work in healthcare, that money must maintain its value and they should even be owed more than they saved even though there is nobody to provide those services. This is why inflation is a necessary evil. It tells you what's really going on in the world. People will present inflation as theft but the truth is that your money is losing its value because it should be losing its value.
Just because e.g. gold is free of inflation doesn't mean that there will be healthcare services waiting at the start of your retirement to accept that gold. It's just pure speculation.
The problem you are talking about is rigidity. Contracts are just promises and predictions. Reality is always different. This is why we let people go bankrupt and write off their debt, to add the necessary amount of flexibility to account for the real world being unpredictable.
Following pieces of paper down to their very letter will make people abandon perfectly fine businesses. A lot of profitable businesses would have to shut down if they had to pay extortionate interest rates.
Positive interest rates simply reward short term thinking. Let's imagine a hypothetical scenario where interest rates are 5% (don't confuse this with the federal funds rate) across the board but it's only the rental car companies that have been hit by covid. A bean counter would see that shutting down the rental car company and using the capital for something else would be a better idea than to keep the rental car company. Next year everyone wants rental cars and the returns increase above 5%.
The point is that we make decisions in the present yet most of the money is going to be earned in the future. What we need is patience and patience means low interest rates, as close to zero as possible and maybe negative if we want 0% inflation.
Following pieces of paper down to their very letter will make people abandon perfectly fine businesses. A lot of profitable businesses would have to shut down if they had to pay extortionate interest rates.
Positive interest rates simply reward short term thinking. Let's imagine a hypothetical scenario where interest rates are 5% (don't confuse this with the federal funds rate) across the board but it's only the rental car companies that have been hit by covid. A bean counter would see that shutting down the rental car company and using the capital for something else would be a better idea than to keep the rental car company. Next year everyone wants rental cars and the returns increase above 5%.
The point is that we make decisions in the present yet most of the money is going to be earned in the future. What we need is patience and patience means low interest rates, as close to zero as possible and maybe negative if we want 0% inflation.
>> Then BOOM, the black swan of a pandemic hit
A pandemic is not a black swan. Just like Earth quakes are not black swans. There is a Center for Disease Control for fighting pandemics.
We built fragile but efficient (for profit optimization) systems that had a good run. People plan for and about pandemics or at least pretended to, when needed grants.
edit: Black Swans are very very low probable events. Pandemics have been around in human history enough times.
edit2: Here is Taleb on cnbc...pandemic and blackswan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb2pXXUSzmI
A pandemic is not a black swan. Just like Earth quakes are not black swans. There is a Center for Disease Control for fighting pandemics.
We built fragile but efficient (for profit optimization) systems that had a good run. People plan for and about pandemics or at least pretended to, when needed grants.
edit: Black Swans are very very low probable events. Pandemics have been around in human history enough times.
edit2: Here is Taleb on cnbc...pandemic and blackswan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb2pXXUSzmI
I think the black swan event is less of the pandemic itself and more of how it played out. If actions were taken and the pandemic was halted early, there would be less impact. At least speaking of the US.
The pandemic has gone on for far longer than it really needed to due to the politicization of safety measures. Several countries were able to nearly beat back the pandemic rather early, but the US is currently sitting in a third or fourth wave due to asinine behaviors of a few state governments.
Yes, a pandemic itself isn't black swan, but just how badly this was fumbled sure seems like it is (at least I damn well hope the next one isn't so badly managed).
The pandemic has gone on for far longer than it really needed to due to the politicization of safety measures. Several countries were able to nearly beat back the pandemic rather early, but the US is currently sitting in a third or fourth wave due to asinine behaviors of a few state governments.
Yes, a pandemic itself isn't black swan, but just how badly this was fumbled sure seems like it is (at least I damn well hope the next one isn't so badly managed).
Are there any countries that don't have any COVID restrictions other than international travel? Did every country in the world fumble it?
After initial severe restrictions, yes. No.
Which countries are those?
New Zealand is an example. Auckland has an outbreak right now and has relatively severe restrictions again, but the rest of the country has very few restrictions beyond mask use. My life would have been impacted far less had I been in Auckland instead of a big city in the US.
You made my point for me. Even New Zealand, the one country everyone likes to point to as having beat COVID, has lockdowns today.
Sure and in my opinion it’s a better system for me personally and if I had an in-person business my balance sheet would prefer it too. All to obscure an incredibly important point that their death toll has been minimal, under 50 as far as I can see. USA is nearing 700,000.
I think New Zealand is rather famous for it's COVID response and recovery. Denmark and Finland also had great responses.
That said, I'm in the US and not well equipped to speak to their responses, having not experienced them first hand.
That said, I'm in the US and not well equipped to speak to their responses, having not experienced them first hand.
Finland’s was quite light touch, apart from the start where bars had to shut along with schools and WFH, ‘lockdown’ here was not in the same league as say the UK or France. There never were and are not now enforceable mask mandates and the more empty parts of the country have been restriction free for most of the year.
Maybe it was luck, a sparse population or of course the often repeated ‘everyone always does what they’re told’ (hmmm). Also it started off well but things have become quite fragmented recently (different agencies issuing rules about different things at different times, in different regions, much to the dismay of anyone trying to plan anything). In short, whilst interesting, there’s not really any useful comparison that you can make between the US and Finland in my opinion.
Maybe it was luck, a sparse population or of course the often repeated ‘everyone always does what they’re told’ (hmmm). Also it started off well but things have become quite fragmented recently (different agencies issuing rules about different things at different times, in different regions, much to the dismay of anyone trying to plan anything). In short, whilst interesting, there’s not really any useful comparison that you can make between the US and Finland in my opinion.
Both New Zealand and Finland have very low population density. UK and France have 10 times more people per square mile.
The density people live at isn't "very low", they mostly live in towns and cities.
Objectively the population density of Helsinki [1] is half that of London [2] - and according to google, a tenth of that of Paris.
Subjectively after living in both Helsinki and London it feels like Helsinki is even less crowded. I would say that there are fewer people who commute in to commercial areas from outside of the city than in London, and the commercial areas such as offices are generally a lot less dense, newer, and more spread out.
[1] https://www.hel.fi/hel2/tietokeskus/julkaisut/pdf/19_06_14_H... [2] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populati...
Subjectively after living in both Helsinki and London it feels like Helsinki is even less crowded. I would say that there are fewer people who commute in to commercial areas from outside of the city than in London, and the commercial areas such as offices are generally a lot less dense, newer, and more spread out.
[1] https://www.hel.fi/hel2/tietokeskus/julkaisut/pdf/19_06_14_H... [2] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populati...
Yeah, it's still not 'very low'. The population density of the town I live in, which is not 'very low', is ~400 per square km. The county, which is denser than most of the area of the US, is 12 per square km.
> at least I damn well hope the next one isn't so badly managed
It will be, and that not being obvious is exactly the problem we have today with our policies.
The pandemic is a worldwide phenomenon, to think it could have gone any other way is incredibly naive.
To say the pandemic was extended by politics around safety measures is missing several larger reasons covid became endemic.
e.g. local politics is largely irrelevant when the us never instituted forced quarantine for international travel.
It will be, and that not being obvious is exactly the problem we have today with our policies.
The pandemic is a worldwide phenomenon, to think it could have gone any other way is incredibly naive.
To say the pandemic was extended by politics around safety measures is missing several larger reasons covid became endemic.
e.g. local politics is largely irrelevant when the us never instituted forced quarantine for international travel.
The pandemic was definitely extended in the US due to politics.
Every attempt at curtailing the spread was rolled back or defeated specifically due to politics at the highest levels of the US Gov't, from not implementing travel bans as appropriate to blocking masking mandates, to state level gov'ts re-opening economies and lifting lockdowns during surges. The current hot-spots in the US are almost perfectly aligned on US political boundaries.
Even now it continues as masking and vaccination continues to be politicized with one side spreading obviously unfounded FUD around the vaccine and inflammatory messaging that masking children is "child abuse".
Every attempt at curtailing the spread was rolled back or defeated specifically due to politics at the highest levels of the US Gov't, from not implementing travel bans as appropriate to blocking masking mandates, to state level gov'ts re-opening economies and lifting lockdowns during surges. The current hot-spots in the US are almost perfectly aligned on US political boundaries.
Even now it continues as masking and vaccination continues to be politicized with one side spreading obviously unfounded FUD around the vaccine and inflammatory messaging that masking children is "child abuse".
Being ‘extended’ 1) assumes we know when it will be over (we don’t yet!), and 2) we can calculate when/if we are through it, and when/if we would have been through it.
It would have required massive, and likely unsuccessful mobilization to lock down travel (both foreign and domestic) enough to actually control Covid aka New Zealand. Considering the land borders and smuggling problems there alone, I think it would have been ultimately futile.
Considering how politically fragmented the country was and still is even before the pandemic, trying it somewhat successfully may also have kicked off a Civil war - not that anyone would have tried that hard.
Vaccination rollouts could definitely have gone smoother, and better programs to manage the rollouts would have also been really nice - but given the situation above, it would only have been a (short) while before Delta or something like it got going anyway and started spreading.
Fewer would have died from COVID probably, but overall deaths may have been similar (more violence during riots? More shooting and civil unrest), and the fear and other issues (socio political strife for instance) would still have happened, just looked different probably. These types of situations are brutally hard.
Overall, I’d give the US a solid ‘C’ grade. Not great, not terrible.
It would have required massive, and likely unsuccessful mobilization to lock down travel (both foreign and domestic) enough to actually control Covid aka New Zealand. Considering the land borders and smuggling problems there alone, I think it would have been ultimately futile.
Considering how politically fragmented the country was and still is even before the pandemic, trying it somewhat successfully may also have kicked off a Civil war - not that anyone would have tried that hard.
Vaccination rollouts could definitely have gone smoother, and better programs to manage the rollouts would have also been really nice - but given the situation above, it would only have been a (short) while before Delta or something like it got going anyway and started spreading.
Fewer would have died from COVID probably, but overall deaths may have been similar (more violence during riots? More shooting and civil unrest), and the fear and other issues (socio political strife for instance) would still have happened, just looked different probably. These types of situations are brutally hard.
Overall, I’d give the US a solid ‘C’ grade. Not great, not terrible.
The pandemic is still going on in plenty of countries other than the US.
Trying to blame a global phenomenon on the politics of one country with less than 5% of the world’s population is extremely parochial.
Trying to blame a global phenomenon on the politics of one country with less than 5% of the world’s population is extremely parochial.
Which Pandemic got resolved in span of 18 months, I would like to know. The medieval ones took decades to burn through the planet and the spanish flu took 50 million+ and last more than 2 years.
Systems built without taking the Pandemic risk into account are the issue here, Pandemic itself we know it was coming.. we also have movies about them.
Systems built without taking the Pandemic risk into account are the issue here, Pandemic itself we know it was coming.. we also have movies about them.
We also had pandemic plans that got completely tossed out the window. Interestingly if you read them most say to not do any of what we did, including masks.
Also, what pandemics had multiple vaccines delivered in record time? Ones that worked better than was ever hoped for. Even with that, which was the end goal, society seems unable to move on.
Also, what pandemics had multiple vaccines delivered in record time? Ones that worked better than was ever hoped for. Even with that, which was the end goal, society seems unable to move on.
I hear the government hasn't done any planning for Ghostbusting which is disappointing given they have had almost 40 years to plan for it.
Hmm, you say that, but that's what China, Australia, and a lot of other Asia-Pacific nations did. They aren't exactly in better economical shape now.
An interesting thing here from a biological standpoint is the assumption that a global pandemic is akin to a "100 year flood". Our understanding of climate suggests 100 year floods will be more commonplace -- will 100 year pandemics be as well?
I actually surprised we haven't had any big ones other than this in lets say past 50 years. It's clear that world is much more interconnected than ever before so pandemics should also be more common. But I wouldn't really even consider this one so big. Multiple percentage of global population hasn't died...
Really fascinating analysis, thanks! Any reading or authors you’d recommend for more of this kind of thing?
Systems analysis or business models? For the latter I always find Matt Levine's column over at Bloomberg entertaining. Sadly I don't have a good set of recommendations for systems analysis.
Second vote for Matt Levine. You can get his articles sent to your email and not worry about Bloomberg’s monthly article limit.
His articles overlap heavily with top posts on HN. This week he wrote about App Annie.
His articles overlap heavily with top posts on HN. This week he wrote about App Annie.
Wow,
What is more, when you see all those cars that are going to be 'totalled' by the insurance company because they were under water in the southern part of the US or on the east coast, those cars used to be sold for pennies on the dollar in "salvage sales" in which salvage dealers would recover parts and/or do enough repairs to resell them with a salvage title. The bidding for those cars is much more intense given the demand by rental car companies for stock, any stock, to boost their fleets.
Well, the thing about flood-cars is they can look and drive fine but really merit being called totalled - having been submerged makes corrosion inevitable in a much quicker time frame. All of the electrical parts will go bad in X time frame.
Maybe these can be kept going long enough to bring value to companies but it seems like you'll have a lot more car renters on the side of the road than normal.
"Water can ruin electronics, lubricants, and mechanical systems. It may take months or years, but corrosion can find its way to the car's vital electronics, including airbag controllers."
https://www.consumerreports.org/buying-a-car/beware-the-floo...
What is more, when you see all those cars that are going to be 'totalled' by the insurance company because they were under water in the southern part of the US or on the east coast, those cars used to be sold for pennies on the dollar in "salvage sales" in which salvage dealers would recover parts and/or do enough repairs to resell them with a salvage title. The bidding for those cars is much more intense given the demand by rental car companies for stock, any stock, to boost their fleets.
Well, the thing about flood-cars is they can look and drive fine but really merit being called totalled - having been submerged makes corrosion inevitable in a much quicker time frame. All of the electrical parts will go bad in X time frame.
Maybe these can be kept going long enough to bring value to companies but it seems like you'll have a lot more car renters on the side of the road than normal.
"Water can ruin electronics, lubricants, and mechanical systems. It may take months or years, but corrosion can find its way to the car's vital electronics, including airbag controllers."
https://www.consumerreports.org/buying-a-car/beware-the-floo...
If they can keep them going a year or even two it might be worth it for them in the current supply crunch - food for thought. These won’t be sitting in someone’s garage 90% of the time, they’ll be on the road.
That said, not looking forward to having to rent a car and dealing with mold or more frequent breakdowns on the side of the road!
That said, not looking forward to having to rent a car and dealing with mold or more frequent breakdowns on the side of the road!
I exclusively buy newer used cars and keep them forever because 1) I want to suffer the pain of buying a car as rarely as possible 2) I want to let someone else take the big up-front depreciation hit that comes with that intoxicating new car smell.
Every car from a dealership these days comes with a CarFax and these have become mostly useless as a buying tool ever since they became a car sales tool. However, they do often give you some insight into where a car has been via registration and title changes.
I keep a record of recent hurricanes and where reports of flooding happened. If I'm looking at a car, the first thing I want to look at is the CarFax to see if it's ever been out of state so that I can cross-reference it to my hurricane/flooding list. If there is any indication that the car might have been in the same state at the time that a flood happened, it's an immediate hard pass. Doesn't matter if there's no visible evidence of being a flood car, doesn't matter if the title is green. Some outfits are very good at cleaning up flood cars to look close enough to normal that the average joe can't tell the difference. All flood cars are supposed to get a salvage title but a lot of them slip through the cracks. It doesn't take a lot of searching to find anecdotes from burned buyers online.
I have passed on several cars that looked like great deals but came from flood zones and possibly passed through the hands of a few unscrupulous auctions, mechanics, and dealers on their way to my region.
Every car from a dealership these days comes with a CarFax and these have become mostly useless as a buying tool ever since they became a car sales tool. However, they do often give you some insight into where a car has been via registration and title changes.
I keep a record of recent hurricanes and where reports of flooding happened. If I'm looking at a car, the first thing I want to look at is the CarFax to see if it's ever been out of state so that I can cross-reference it to my hurricane/flooding list. If there is any indication that the car might have been in the same state at the time that a flood happened, it's an immediate hard pass. Doesn't matter if there's no visible evidence of being a flood car, doesn't matter if the title is green. Some outfits are very good at cleaning up flood cars to look close enough to normal that the average joe can't tell the difference. All flood cars are supposed to get a salvage title but a lot of them slip through the cracks. It doesn't take a lot of searching to find anecdotes from burned buyers online.
I have passed on several cars that looked like great deals but came from flood zones and possibly passed through the hands of a few unscrupulous auctions, mechanics, and dealers on their way to my region.
> I want to let someone else take the big up-front depreciation hit that comes with that intoxicating new car smell.
It's interesting how people talk about "depreciation" of an item that pretty much never, if ever, increases in value.
It's interesting how people talk about "depreciation" of an item that pretty much never, if ever, increases in value.
But not all cars depreciate at the same rate.
For example for a few years Chevrolet Silverados were made with "cat eye" headlights. Those trucks hold their value far more than chevys with rectangle headlights, all other variables being equal.
For example for a few years Chevrolet Silverados were made with "cat eye" headlights. Those trucks hold their value far more than chevys with rectangle headlights, all other variables being equal.
What term would you prefer?
It is a very useful concept.
It is a very useful concept.
I buy new, end-of-year sales models. Drive them and sell them for a slight loss 2-3 years later to Car Max.
For example, let's say the new car is $50,000. I wait until it's $42,000 or whatever, buy it, keep it for 2-3 years, and sell it for say $37,000. I've done that 4 times now. I don't understand the business model of Car Max, to be honest. There seems to be a lot of people who believe used cars are good deals, I guess.
For example, let's say the new car is $50,000. I wait until it's $42,000 or whatever, buy it, keep it for 2-3 years, and sell it for say $37,000. I've done that 4 times now. I don't understand the business model of Car Max, to be honest. There seems to be a lot of people who believe used cars are good deals, I guess.
It's been a hot minute since I last saw a "barely used" car going for an appreciable discount over a brand new one. Even today you may be able to find a better deal on a new car where the dealership isn't adding a scalping fee.
For the reliable cars like Honda Civics and in-demand ones the 1st year depreciation wasn't actually all that much compared to buying it new with a good dealer discount, urban legends notwithstanding.
For the reliable cars like Honda Civics and in-demand ones the 1st year depreciation wasn't actually all that much compared to buying it new with a good dealer discount, urban legends notwithstanding.
Yeah for me when we were buying our next minivan Honda it was more important that we didn't end up buying the first cars in a generation refresh. The first year of a generation tends to have more bugs than others. New vs like-new doesn't matter for the big reliable mass produced cars.
https://www.autolist.com/honda-odyssey/honda-odyssey-generat...
https://www.autolist.com/honda-odyssey/honda-odyssey-generat...
If GP is like me, it's related to buying used higher end and/or "luxury" brand vehicles. In my experience, my previous 2 vehicles were 2 and 3 years old respectively and cost roughly ~60% of sticker price.
Yep, this is what I've experienced last two times around looking at Acuras, Lexus, etc. Maybe it's different with trucks, SUVs, and non-luxury brands, but the new cost of a mid-tier Acura is at least 50% more than one with 20K miles off a 2-3 year lease. This was always the sweet spot for these cars as they were in perfect shape and still had pretty decent "certified warranties".
I'm due for an upgrade, but if my choice is between a full price $40K new sedan or a 3 year old one for $38K (instead of the $26K I'd expect to pay a few years ago), then I'm more than content to just keep my ten year old Acura, knowing I'll need to spend $500/yr on repairs as it starts showing its age.
I'm due for an upgrade, but if my choice is between a full price $40K new sedan or a 3 year old one for $38K (instead of the $26K I'd expect to pay a few years ago), then I'm more than content to just keep my ten year old Acura, knowing I'll need to spend $500/yr on repairs as it starts showing its age.
I imagine this is a big motivator for car companies to start moving towards a CaaS model
My local dealer (pre-covid) had a deal where basically you paid $1000+ a month, and got your choice of which luxury vehicle you wanted. Swap em in and out like old school Netflix. No idea how successful it was, but I don't hear anything about it anymore.
Volvo is trying this! They call it a car subscription. Doesn't seem like it has had a huge impact, though: https://www.volvocars.com/us/care-by-volvo/
Looks exactly like a lease except they cover a few more things like tires? And even then, it says they cover cases of "excessive wear" which implies something wrong with the vehicle which the warranty should cover in either case.
Is there any real difference besides the fact that you can order it online and that it appears much more expensive?
Is there any real difference besides the fact that you can order it online and that it appears much more expensive?
That's what a lease is.
I'm thinking more along the lines of how car companies can recapture the money that the second owner is saving by buying a used vehicle.
For example instead of selling a car, selling a license to use the car to the first owner and then deactivating features or throttling performance if/when they resell the car.
For example instead of selling a car, selling a license to use the car to the first owner and then deactivating features or throttling performance if/when they resell the car.
GM currently tracks 100+ variables of your car over the life of usage (thanks on star!) and then calculates a resale price and offers to buy it back or gives you a certain deal when trading in.
Ford does something similar but is easily defeated by changing the stereo. The APIM tracks your driving habits locations and ecu vars which is captured and uploaded to Ford when you take the car in for service (don’t know how this works in their newer 2019+ cars since they are also connected 24/7 like GM)
Ford does something similar but is easily defeated by changing the stereo. The APIM tracks your driving habits locations and ecu vars which is captured and uploaded to Ford when you take the car in for service (don’t know how this works in their newer 2019+ cars since they are also connected 24/7 like GM)
If the car is known to have no resale value, it will command lower price when new, so car companies can hardly do much here.
Same here, we bought a new Subaru Crosstrek the end last year. Looking at the depreciation curve we found that the car didn't really depreciate more the first couple years than it did later years, so going for a new one made a lot more sense than I initially thought it would.
Same with my Subaru Forester! My car got totaled so I needed a new one. Used Forster that were 2-3 years old with 30k miles were selling for 24-26k with loan interest rate of 1.9 or so. I ended up by a brand new Forster xt for 28k with 0 interest loan from Subaru. Only cost me 2k more to get brand new car with full warranty vs a car that was 3 years old. Made back the difference in interest rate. I took a 5 year loan because why not no interest. I was never underwater on the car as put decent amount down.
My 2019 Honda Accord LX got totaled from the Ida flooding, it had 16k miles on it, I paid $22K.
Looking at cars now I’m seeing 2109 LX’s with 30K mikes selling for $26-28K it’s crazy.
Looking at cars now I’m seeing 2109 LX’s with 30K mikes selling for $26-28K it’s crazy.
Fairly annoyed they discontinued the Forester XT. Only reason I bought a used one.
I like it. I kinda wish I got the touring for eyesight for adaptive cruise control. But it came with leather and I was just not going to deal with leather. Though the outback XT is pretty good as it is 2.4 ascent engine so no premium.
I got the touring and it’s definitely nice. The problem is that you can’t replace the head unit since the Harmon Kardon speaker system needs an extra amplifier. That means I don’t have CarPlay. Makes me sad.
The ACC is a bit spiky. Could use some easing. But with everything on it’s not too bad in rush hour traffic when I don’t feel like taking the motorcycle out. Feet on the floor and it takes care of everything.
The ACC is a bit spiky. Could use some easing. But with everything on it’s not too bad in rush hour traffic when I don’t feel like taking the motorcycle out. Feet on the floor and it takes care of everything.
Subarus are weird.
They focus on and serve a few niche markets, so some models are always in tight supply and rarely have incentives.
They focus on and serve a few niche markets, so some models are always in tight supply and rarely have incentives.
Yes, if you calculate the depreciation based on getting a pretty good deal rather than paying the list price, the fabled thousands you lose as soon as you drive off the forecourt mostly vanish.
Just watch out for that head gasket problem!
Simply put, the ask-bid spread on barely-used and/or CPO cars are huge (read: they buy really low and sell really high). Dealers make a lot of money this way.
My 2014 Ford is now selling for the same price I bought it for. I have only put 10k miles on it in the last 4 years. Tempted to sell it and wait for the recovery and pickup a new car at bargain basement prices
[deleted]
Depends on the make and model.
Yeah the last two times I bought a car I just bought new with the plan to ride it out until it started becoming unreliable. Well, the first one I totaled instead so it didn't totally work out, but the second one is paid off and still running great, plus I know it has been maintained to a reasonable standard.
I've done that with my wife's last two cars but in both cases we ended up spending a lot before we replaced them. This time we will swap them out a little earlier.
I haven’t looked at carfax in a while, how granular is the location data? I thought it just reported state, in which case you simply never buy a car that has been on the south or east coasts?
[deleted]
It is possible to "wash a title" by moving it through different states with different salvage title requirements/systems.
> 1) I want to suffer the pain of buying a car as rarely as possible
It is not that bad as of 5 years ago. You can email various dealerships and ask them to contact you if they are willing to sell at $x. If you are more desperate, you can ask them to email you their best offer. I was in and out in about 2 hours, just filled out forms based on what was discussed in the email and browsed on my phone in the meantime.
You can even see the inventory online at the car brands' websites. Although that may have changed in the last 18 months due to extreme imbalance in supply and demand.
It is not that bad as of 5 years ago. You can email various dealerships and ask them to contact you if they are willing to sell at $x. If you are more desperate, you can ask them to email you their best offer. I was in and out in about 2 hours, just filled out forms based on what was discussed in the email and browsed on my phone in the meantime.
You can even see the inventory online at the car brands' websites. Although that may have changed in the last 18 months due to extreme imbalance in supply and demand.
In the UK there are websites that automate this for you such as https://www.carwow.co.uk/new-car-deals
Could be a good business idea if this doesn't exist in the US
Could be a good business idea if this doesn't exist in the US
How did you handle the extra fees and charges that appeared on the final paperwork and that had never been discussed?
I would have walked out. But the emails I sent always made it clear I am only discussing total price, inclusive of everything. The few that were not able to clearly respond to my emails, I ignored.
I have only bought 2 cars in my life, the same way, so my data set is not extensive. But I did get the idea from reading about it on forums, so I presume others are getting it done the same way.
Actually, Costco has a program where the total out the door car price is set and non negotiable and I would assume the dealer would not want to screw you as that could cause you to report them to Costco and then Costco to sever ties with them.
What I did is start at the Costco price and email a bunch of dealers and let them know I am interested if anyone wants to beat that price.
I have only bought 2 cars in my life, the same way, so my data set is not extensive. But I did get the idea from reading about it on forums, so I presume others are getting it done the same way.
Actually, Costco has a program where the total out the door car price is set and non negotiable and I would assume the dealer would not want to screw you as that could cause you to report them to Costco and then Costco to sever ties with them.
What I did is start at the Costco price and email a bunch of dealers and let them know I am interested if anyone wants to beat that price.
How did you find out the Costco price? I tried this and it only told me the dealer who was their designated Costco liason, but, absurdly, wouldn't show me the price.
Yes, the dealer contracted with Costco has to give you the price, but I believe the benefit is that the dealer will not yank you around with various options and up charges or last minute surprises. They should be able to email you an out the door price per whatever agreement they have with Costco and you should be able to shop that around at other dealers.
Of course, this may have changed due to recent circumstances.
Of course, this may have changed due to recent circumstances.
Ask for “out the door price”. It makes it an apples to apples comparison. For my last car, 30 minutes of phone calls to the “online sales manager” pretty much zeroed in on the lowest price I would get in my area, and this matched the KBB forum prices I was seeing.
Or… just by a Tesla. I hate that I am a fanboy, but I am. Great sales process, great car.
Or… just by a Tesla. I hate that I am a fanboy, but I am. Great sales process, great car.
Bingo. I thought I finally had the procedure down last time around. I found similar models, sent them my terms over email, and let them know I wouldn't put up with games and would walk the minute I detected any BS.
Several dealers seemed to know the type of customer they were dealing with, and for the most part, played things straight.
A month or two later when I was reviewing my account on the credit company's site, I discovered some sort of financing charge for $1500. I have no idea how they managed to slip it in - maybe I could have got it removed if I complained. But at that point, the sale was made and the creditor would blame the dealer, the dealer would blame the creditor, and it wasn't worth the fight.
They just cannot be trusted - it's inherent in their business model and how the various teams (sales, financing, etc) all earn their commissions.
Several dealers seemed to know the type of customer they were dealing with, and for the most part, played things straight.
A month or two later when I was reviewing my account on the credit company's site, I discovered some sort of financing charge for $1500. I have no idea how they managed to slip it in - maybe I could have got it removed if I complained. But at that point, the sale was made and the creditor would blame the dealer, the dealer would blame the creditor, and it wasn't worth the fight.
They just cannot be trusted - it's inherent in their business model and how the various teams (sales, financing, etc) all earn their commissions.
…$1,500 is not worth the fight? All you have to do is ask them to prove where you agreed to it. You either missed it when you signed the paperwork, or they are stealing from you.
> All you have to do is ask them to prove where you agreed to it.
I'm sure I did "agree to it"... on page 18, paragraph 3, subsection 4 - right there in the 6pt font where it states I understand I'm liable for applicable dealer-financing surcharges, etc. which can be applied at some later date.
I'm sure I did "agree to it"... on page 18, paragraph 3, subsection 4 - right there in the 6pt font where it states I understand I'm liable for applicable dealer-financing surcharges, etc. which can be applied at some later date.
The big dealerships have learned to cut out the bullshit. They make money on volume, turning cars off the lot quickly, rather than trying to maximize profit on each sale individually.
Everyone who thinks they're smart by reading /r/personalfinance has figured this "hack" out. You're not saving much of anything by buying newish used cars unless you're buying the things that moneyed buyers flee from (Ford Foci, Chrysler 200s, other stereotypical fleet sedans from non-premium manufacturers), no a Camry/Accord do not meet these criteria.
I buy 6-7 years old around with around 100k miles. A car that was $40k will sell for $15k of less. Saves so much money that I can easily put new interior, upgraded entertainment, new wheels etc and still come out way ahead.
Cars made in the last 2 decades by most manufacturers tend to be very reliable, even well past the 200k miles mark.
As for maintenance, just find a trustworthy Indy mechanic and never go back to a dealer again. Compared to family that always leases a new car, there really isn't much difference in repair downtime. New cars tend to have a lot of bugs to work out that have already been addressed in a well used car.
Cars made in the last 2 decades by most manufacturers tend to be very reliable, even well past the 200k miles mark.
As for maintenance, just find a trustworthy Indy mechanic and never go back to a dealer again. Compared to family that always leases a new car, there really isn't much difference in repair downtime. New cars tend to have a lot of bugs to work out that have already been addressed in a well used car.
My Indy mechanic is very good and very fast. Although it’s a little pricey. When I pulled in to get a new tire, he had 12 people change out all the tires. The good news is, they took less than 7.7 seconds. The bad news is, they charged me $14,000 and I still lost the race.
> I want to look at is the CarFax to see if it's ever been out of state
I don't understand - I've crossed state lines in the US in a car and never had to inform anyone.
I don't understand - I've crossed state lines in the US in a car and never had to inform anyone.
CarFax gets data from state governments. If you move to Georgia, you'll register your car in Georgia, and the DMV will tell CarFax. Then the CarFax history will contain 'registered in Georgia on xx/xx/xxxx.'
Same if you take the car for service to a shop in New Jersey; if the shop participates with CarFax then the record will include 'oil change and tire rotation @ (shop name), NJ w/ 3,300 miles' or something roughly along those lines.
Same if you take the car for service to a shop in New Jersey; if the shop participates with CarFax then the record will include 'oil change and tire rotation @ (shop name), NJ w/ 3,300 miles' or something roughly along those lines.
Why do government agencies report to a private company?
It's a national program administered by a third party nonprofit: https://vehiclehistory.bja.ojp.gov/
I think he means if there's a record of being registered in a different state, or serviced in a different state.
(E.g. one where there was flooding from his list)
You are not coming out ahead. Buying a new car will have long term benefits compared to someone’s used car which may or may not have issues depending on the reason they sold it so soon.
Also, if you can’t deal with the “pain” of buying a new car every few years you must find a lot of things really painful.
Also, if you can’t deal with the “pain” of buying a new car every few years you must find a lot of things really painful.
> You are not coming out ahead. Buying a new car will have long term benefits compared to someone’s used car which may or may not have issues depending on the reason they sold it so soon.
Most people sell their new cars due to an expiring warranty period. Second most people sell their new cars due to the needs of a growing family. The third most people sell their new cars due to a changed financial situation. The fourth most people sell their new cars because they want even newer cars.
'Build quality dissatisfaction and reliability' is the fifth most common reason to sell a new car; or rather, to introduce a single-owner car to the used car market.
I had a JD Power infographic from ~2013 that listed the reasons, but am having trouble finding it.
Unless things have changed since 2013 signifigantly, most used cars that just exitted the factory warranty -- and sometimes factory maintenance umbrella -- have a lot of life left in them.
Aside from that, a car that is a few years older has a significant price advantage on parts -- a feature that is attractive to capable DIYers and mechanics.
And further aside from that -- if you're in the market for a used luxury brand car (Lexus/Infiniti/BMW/Audi/Mercedes/Porsche/ETC) , buying used allows one to side-step the dealer imposed major dealer-markup fees.
Example : the E92 M3 MSRP from from 2009 was about 70,900~ USD. The dealership markup in North Hollywood was 30.5k. In 2010 that same car was worth ~67,000 USD on the used market.
Many of these cars had less than 20,000 miles at the time of sale; buying a card with mileage that low is worth a 35,000 dollar discount to many people.
Most people sell their new cars due to an expiring warranty period. Second most people sell their new cars due to the needs of a growing family. The third most people sell their new cars due to a changed financial situation. The fourth most people sell their new cars because they want even newer cars.
'Build quality dissatisfaction and reliability' is the fifth most common reason to sell a new car; or rather, to introduce a single-owner car to the used car market.
I had a JD Power infographic from ~2013 that listed the reasons, but am having trouble finding it.
Unless things have changed since 2013 signifigantly, most used cars that just exitted the factory warranty -- and sometimes factory maintenance umbrella -- have a lot of life left in them.
Aside from that, a car that is a few years older has a significant price advantage on parts -- a feature that is attractive to capable DIYers and mechanics.
And further aside from that -- if you're in the market for a used luxury brand car (Lexus/Infiniti/BMW/Audi/Mercedes/Porsche/ETC) , buying used allows one to side-step the dealer imposed major dealer-markup fees.
Example : the E92 M3 MSRP from from 2009 was about 70,900~ USD. The dealership markup in North Hollywood was 30.5k. In 2010 that same car was worth ~67,000 USD on the used market.
Many of these cars had less than 20,000 miles at the time of sale; buying a card with mileage that low is worth a 35,000 dollar discount to many people.
Alternative view; a car that is in decent shape from a first owner, especially if that person put on mostly highway miles and had the first 50+k miles of maintenance paid for is definitely not a lemon.
Anecdotally: bought a 2004 bmw from the original owner with 123k miles in 6 years. 7 years later. 185k miles, original clutch. (I'm also a mostly highway miles driver, but this also includes track days)
Anecdotally: bought a 2004 bmw from the original owner with 123k miles in 6 years. 7 years later. 185k miles, original clutch. (I'm also a mostly highway miles driver, but this also includes track days)
Here cars are leased on 3-4 year cycles, so its typically best to aim for one of those.
Most people leasing cars do it for fashion reasons, so they are normally getting rid of the car to upgrade to the next shiny thing, not due to problems.
Most people leasing cars do it for fashion reasons, so they are normally getting rid of the car to upgrade to the next shiny thing, not due to problems.
> Also, if you can’t deal with the “pain” of buying a new car every few years you must find a lot of things really painful.
Buying cars sucks and is entirely why Carvana and Carmax exist.
Buying cars sucks and is entirely why Carvana and Carmax exist.
if you bought a car new in 2019 (as I did), and it is the kind of car rental companies might rent (which mine is), you get letters from the dealer in 2021 offering to buy it back from you for more than you paid for it!
I'm in this situation and it's getting strange if your car is leased. Carvana and the like were offering me thousands more than the buyout amount. Like $5,000 at one point.
But now the automakers and their banks are shutting off 3rd party purchases, meaning the only parties that can buy the car off the lease are you and the dealer. And the dealer has no car on-hand to replace the one you plan to sell back, or if they do they want thousands over MSRP because that's what the market is bearing. So it's a wash.
I'm in this situation and it's getting strange if your car is leased. Carvana and the like were offering me thousands more than the buyout amount. Like $5,000 at one point.
But now the automakers and their banks are shutting off 3rd party purchases, meaning the only parties that can buy the car off the lease are you and the dealer. And the dealer has no car on-hand to replace the one you plan to sell back, or if they do they want thousands over MSRP because that's what the market is bearing. So it's a wash.
Interesting. I just sold my off-lease car to Carmax for $6k more than the buyout. When I was at Carmax, they had me call BMW financial services on speakerphone because they wouldn't give carmax the final payoff/lienholder information. That must have been what was happening.
There are a lot of interesting anecdotes on /r/askcarsales about this.
One consensus is that Carvana/Vroom/Shift are buying cars at a loss to try and capture market share. Carmax has more of a track record so they might be getting a better shake like your experience. It could also be you calling personally that unlocked the lien, where the other companies don't work that way.
Some manufacturers like Volvo aren't letting you out of the lease early unless you're leasing another Volvo.
One consensus is that Carvana/Vroom/Shift are buying cars at a loss to try and capture market share. Carmax has more of a track record so they might be getting a better shake like your experience. It could also be you calling personally that unlocked the lien, where the other companies don't work that way.
Some manufacturers like Volvo aren't letting you out of the lease early unless you're leasing another Volvo.
> One consensus is that Carvana/Vroom/Shift are buying cars at a loss to try and capture market share.
They absolutely are. Where I live, these companies are (and have been before COVID) paying well above market rates for newer used cars from private sellers. On the flip side, all of your typical auto sales rags and sites that used to have listings from private sellers and used car dealerships are now mainly carvana listings.
They absolutely are. Where I live, these companies are (and have been before COVID) paying well above market rates for newer used cars from private sellers. On the flip side, all of your typical auto sales rags and sites that used to have listings from private sellers and used car dealerships are now mainly carvana listings.
Sounds like anecdotes about Zillow where they're working hard to buy up all the inventory they can.
Even if you don't want to buy out your lease, buy it out anyway and then sell the car to your dealer (or another dealer). Check the numbers first of course, but you'll likely pocket several thousand dollars.
In certain states you will owe the sales tax on the entire residual amount. This tax is skipped when you let the dealer assume the buyout. But in the past 6-12 months some banks are adding massive amounts to the buyout price when the owner isn't the one making the purchase.
When you read the fine print, the residual value only applies to the owner. The bank can charge whatever it wants to everyone else, or deny the purchase altogether.
When you read the fine print, the residual value only applies to the owner. The bank can charge whatever it wants to everyone else, or deny the purchase altogether.
This (and other supply chain examples) remind me of how TCP flow control works. When going full blast it can transfer vast amounts of data in a giant window, but time out one thing and you get to start from zero, slowly ramping back up over several seconds.
I just sold today a Toyota Camry which I bought in 2017, and got back, after consignment costs, the same amount that I had paid back then.
A company I am familiar with that build electronic equipment went with just-in-time inventory for it. When they had some unexpected sales, they ran out of resistors, and had to quote months of delay to the customer. Naturally, this cost them a lot of sales as customers went elsewhere.
It got so bad that one of the engineers on his own dime stocked his desk with resistors and other small parts.
Madness.
It got so bad that one of the engineers on his own dime stocked his desk with resistors and other small parts.
Madness.
Okay, that is pretty crazy. I mean resistors aren't that big after all :-). Of course when the great resistor/capacitor shortage hit I looked into building a manufacturing plant in the US. It would have been surprisingly affordable however I was warned off by all of the environmental hate that would come my way if I tried.
Yeah, stopping your assembly line due to having ordered 312 resistors and you needed 313 is just - plain - madness. But that's what they did, and took a big hit to the bottom line because of it.
Part of the problem stemmed from rating employees on how successful they were at JIT inventory. You get what you rank for, not what makes sense.
Part of the problem stemmed from rating employees on how successful they were at JIT inventory. You get what you rank for, not what makes sense.
Would it not have been affordable to make it clean?
Yes, however a weird side effect of the environmental laws in the US (and California in particular) is that you can use the state to incur so much cost to the builder to show that it would be clean, creates a huge sunk cost you have to pay back before your manufacturing plant is making any money.
It doesn't make a lot of sense, and sadly there is no equivalent of "recovering court costs" from the people who exploited the law to shut you down.
It doesn't make a lot of sense, and sadly there is no equivalent of "recovering court costs" from the people who exploited the law to shut you down.
Resistors!? Unless they were particularly specialized ones, the first THT resistor I picked on digikey had about 1.5 million in stock (and Digikey is profoundly not a particularly big-boy market)
The lead times are absolutely horrific though. And I do worry that fast PC parts (specifically GPUs) may be this price for a while.
The lead times are absolutely horrific though. And I do worry that fast PC parts (specifically GPUs) may be this price for a while.
The inventory people were not allowed to buy more inventory until the monthly buying time came around again. It was not an external issue, it was entirely internal.
"monthly buying time" sounds like a very... interesting... interpretation of just-in-time supply chains.
"Just in time" is great for finance people, but not a healthy scheme when you consider life does not run on tracks. It is a bet that sometimes you win, but sometimes you lose.
implying the antivax are not smart, really?
Don't forget that these companies are also financing the depreciation by buying all these cars on credit
One thing that has never made much sense to me is that you can most of the time (at least pre-pandemic) rent a car for cheaper than you can rent a bike (as a tourist in a city), with cars costing an order of magnitude more. I'm not sure if it's car rental that is/was crazy cheap or bike renting that is a rip-off...
Might be because of different utilization rates. Cars can be rented 7 days/week between biz (weekday) and consumer (weekend) travelers, and across all seasons of the year. I’m guessing bikes get rented on weekends (30% of days) during the summer and spring (50% of days).
Rough estimates of course, but only 15% utilization (30%*50%) would radically change daily rental prices. Doubt it’s the only reason, but wouldn’t be surprised if it’s factor
Rough estimates of course, but only 15% utilization (30%*50%) would radically change daily rental prices. Doubt it’s the only reason, but wouldn’t be surprised if it’s factor
Yeah I dunno about there, but the times I've needed to rent a car in various parts of California, it's always an experience:
Usually you sit in a busy room. They call everyone one at a time - because there's a constant stream of people dropping off cars and picking up cars. For the most part, I'd say a car never sat more than an hour between being dropped off, getting cleaned, and being handed off to a new renter.
That has held true every. single. time. I've rented a car. And that goes back as long as I can remember, to when my parents rented cars 20 years ago lol.
Usually you sit in a busy room. They call everyone one at a time - because there's a constant stream of people dropping off cars and picking up cars. For the most part, I'd say a car never sat more than an hour between being dropped off, getting cleaned, and being handed off to a new renter.
That has held true every. single. time. I've rented a car. And that goes back as long as I can remember, to when my parents rented cars 20 years ago lol.
Yup, as Warren Buffet so succinctly put it:
"When the tide goes out, you then see who has been swimming naked.".
"When the tide goes out, you then see who has been swimming naked.".
This spring I got an offer from my local Ford dealer to buy my 2015 Mustang for more than I bought it for. In 2016.
It's insane!
The crunch has abated some, though, and it was only for a short period of time you could get offers like that, but still!
> smart people have vaccinated themselves and they start traveling again. And those people want to rent cars.
Note that this is a very American thing though, because international travel is still banned, which means that Americans are forced to travel domestically, and when Americans go on a holiday, they rent a car, because you rent a car, because you have to have a car, and the idea of not renting a car when on holiday is completely alien to Americans. Normally, most of them would go abroad, and rent cars there, while the domestic car rental market would target non-American tourists, who rent cars less, so there's an even bigger demand for rental cars now than it would be if tourist patterns were back to normal.
It's insane!
The crunch has abated some, though, and it was only for a short period of time you could get offers like that, but still!
> smart people have vaccinated themselves and they start traveling again. And those people want to rent cars.
Note that this is a very American thing though, because international travel is still banned, which means that Americans are forced to travel domestically, and when Americans go on a holiday, they rent a car, because you rent a car, because you have to have a car, and the idea of not renting a car when on holiday is completely alien to Americans. Normally, most of them would go abroad, and rent cars there, while the domestic car rental market would target non-American tourists, who rent cars less, so there's an even bigger demand for rental cars now than it would be if tourist patterns were back to normal.
The typical American holiday involves driving an owned car to somewhere not all that far away.
That and you can still transmit covid when vaccinated so it's kind of part of the problem to go jetsetting around the globe spreading virus to less fortunate populations.
> "Note that this is a very American thing ... when Americans go on a holiday, they rent a car, because you rent a car, because you have to have a car, and the idea of not renting a car when on holiday is completely alien to Americans."
When I go on holiday in a European city I wouldn't normally rent a car (unless the holiday involved travel to somewhere outside of the city). But when I go on holiday in an American city then of course you rent a car because it's a hassle to try and get around without one and you're going to miss out on a lot of the "American cultural experience" without a car. (Exceptions: NYC, and perhaps Las Vegas)
So it has a lot more to do with the nature of the destination than the nature of the traveller, I'd say.
When I go on holiday in a European city I wouldn't normally rent a car (unless the holiday involved travel to somewhere outside of the city). But when I go on holiday in an American city then of course you rent a car because it's a hassle to try and get around without one and you're going to miss out on a lot of the "American cultural experience" without a car. (Exceptions: NYC, and perhaps Las Vegas)
So it has a lot more to do with the nature of the destination than the nature of the traveller, I'd say.
> So the supply of new cars dried up, and won't untwist until the entire chain is back up and running at capacity again.
I really enjoyed the use of "untwist" here. It's a metaphor that helped me visualize everything that was happening really well.
I really enjoyed the use of "untwist" here. It's a metaphor that helped me visualize everything that was happening really well.
I think the connections are actually pretty obvious. Covid was like an atom bomb. No kind of sane invisible hand could have intelligently responded. Which is why the evil fed has very incompetently responded. You could write the same story about the restaurant industry.
In 2017 I rented a car for a day in Auckland, New Zealand, for $30. It was from a quirky "dings and dents" car rental, and the car was indeed quite lovely besides having a few major cosmetic crinkles in the door panels. The one employee working there was nice enough to drive us to the airport after, and he explained that they owned all of their inventory outright. He said that the other rental companies all leased or financed their inventory, and they struggled to keep enough cars rented out year round while also dealing with large seasonal demand peaks. Their company, meanwhile, had very low overhead for their size of inventory, and could weather arbitrarily long dry spells without worry.
there aren't any cars to buy.
Great write up, thank you for posting.
A while back I heard there’s one more piece to the arithmetic: the depreciation expense lowers net income so the rental company is able to proportionally lower taxes this way as well.
A while back I heard there’s one more piece to the arithmetic: the depreciation expense lowers net income so the rental company is able to proportionally lower taxes this way as well.
The last time I rented a 16' truck for a 1k+ mile one-way move was 6 years ago. It was $400 traveling north along the US east coast. My previous move towards that direction 4 years prior was $1200.
I'm renting another 16' truck for a move going south on the same route next week. The truck and insurance cost over $5000.
I looked at purchasing a box truck as an alternative to reduce the hit to my wallet. Box trucks cost around 2.5x what they did two years ago. I'm finding 10+ year old beat up GMC trucks going for over $100k.
I'm renting another 16' truck for a move going south on the same route next week. The truck and insurance cost over $5000.
I looked at purchasing a box truck as an alternative to reduce the hit to my wallet. Box trucks cost around 2.5x what they did two years ago. I'm finding 10+ year old beat up GMC trucks going for over $100k.
> Box trucks cost around 2.5x what they did two years ago. I'm finding 10+ year old beat up GMC trucks going for over $100k.
a) Where the fuck are you looking? The heavy equipment section of CL in every major city is littered with 10-20yo 15-26ft box trucks for $5-16k depending on specs and condition.
b) Purchase price doesn't really matter that much if you are reselling it when you're done.
a) Where the fuck are you looking? The heavy equipment section of CL in every major city is littered with 10-20yo 15-26ft box trucks for $5-16k depending on specs and condition.
b) Purchase price doesn't really matter that much if you are reselling it when you're done.
My local Hertz in the UK has sky high prices and plenty of new cars. They have no high mileage cars. They’re just profiteering.
Enterprise raised their already high prices even higher. Their fleet looks about the same as pre pandemic too.
Edit: and hertz aren’t content with their high prices, they also recently added a fake 15 minute offer expiry countdown on the booking page. Absolute scumbags.
Enterprise raised their already high prices even higher. Their fleet looks about the same as pre pandemic too.
Edit: and hertz aren’t content with their high prices, they also recently added a fake 15 minute offer expiry countdown on the booking page. Absolute scumbags.
public.... transport! It is a thing outside US.
Between flights canceled and this, you don't want to fly.
I drove instead of flying recently instead - except for the long drive getting there, it was far better to be in your own car.
I drove instead of flying recently instead - except for the long drive getting there, it was far better to be in your own car.
I thought that this summer. This I found out hotels are charging double normal if they even have rooms open.
Probably another local specific thing though.
Probably another local specific thing though.
It is not a locale specific thing. Wages for hotel staff have gone up at least 20% in multiple cities around the country based on other people I have talked to, and costs for supplies have gone up even more.
It makes me happy though because it just means that the people having to work evenings, nights, weekends, and holidays are finally gaining some negotiating power.
It makes me happy though because it just means that the people having to work evenings, nights, weekends, and holidays are finally gaining some negotiating power.
A coworker finished up a trip a day early. Got hos flight changed, then they said "there's no rentals to take you from the airport home." He ended up taking an Uber to a nearby relative's house, as the airport was two hours from his house.
I've rented 4 cars in the last year in 4 different states and have had literally no problems and did not notice any major price gouging. ~$150-200/day for a large SUV on all occasions, seemed like plenty of stock available across companies.
How can the chip shortage cause a car shortage in 1 year?
Cars are not perishable items. The existing supply should prevent us from going into chaos for longer than that.
Cars are not perishable items. The existing supply should prevent us from going into chaos for longer than that.
Easily, when the big guys decide we won't make cars in 1 year. And drop their orders for parts. Now they want to make them, but other industries have instead gotten their rights to buy parts. No parts, no goods...
I keep hearing that car rentals are expensive and terrible, but it's not at all matched my experience. I just rented a car for last weekend 9/10 - 9/12, and it cost me 95 dollars including taxes and fees for the whole weekend. This seems like an incredible deal, when car rentals are apparently so strained?
Perhaps you rented at a location that wasn't extremely popular (major airports)? TFA mentions it's a pretty local problem.
I've rented in DC, PA, and now VA and have not experienced much, if any, problems so far.
I picked up and returned at Dulles International Airport outside Washington DC, which was pretty busy. My theory was that maybe the airport had an excess of rental car inventory on that weekend (being the weekend after Labor Day weekend) and that they were happy to get some inventory off the lot even though I was picking up and returning at the same weekend
It also depends on which company. The budget rental companies, which I assume Dollar Rent a Car would fall under, are notorious for doing stuff like this pre-pandemic as well.
It depends on the location. Orlando has plenty of reasonable rates. If you want to pick up a car at Portland, however, not only does a quick search suggest you're 7 or 8 weeks from any availability at all, but it's twice as expensive as a last-minute rental in Orlando.
A colleague that had to visit Seattle recently ended up renting a U-Haul truck out of desperation.
A colleague that had to visit Seattle recently ended up renting a U-Haul truck out of desperation.
I just checked and economy car in Portland (PDX) from tomorrow for a week is around $1000 total. $150/day is high but a few times I paid that much for rental even before pandemic. October dates are available at around $300/wk.
Clearly there are local shortages but overall it's not a problem to rent a car.
Clearly there are local shortages but overall it's not a problem to rent a car.
> “The area where the compact cars were was empty,” he said, adding that he has demanded a full refund.
> As a result, car rental prices jumped to an average high of $120 a day this summer, compared with about $45 at the beginning of the year, according to a study by the travel booking site Hopper.com.
Maybe they need to be even higher?
> As a result, car rental prices jumped to an average high of $120 a day this summer, compared with about $45 at the beginning of the year, according to a study by the travel booking site Hopper.com.
Maybe they need to be even higher?
nobody seems to be mentioning the car rental monopoly that currently exists:
https://connorleech.info/blog/the-american-rental-car-cartel
https://connorleech.info/blog/the-american-rental-car-cartel
I have admittedly not actually picked up the keys to a rental car yet. Hopefully I will tomorrow.
However, I locked in a reservation on a car quite a few months ago when the horror stories started circulating and the pricing was indeed pretty bad.
But since then I switched that rental and made another rental and the pricing strikes me as fairly normal. Not cheap and with the usual outrageous taxes and fees but these are with major non-discount rental car companies (albeit with a good corporate discount) but not out of the realm of what I consider "normal."
However, I locked in a reservation on a car quite a few months ago when the horror stories started circulating and the pricing was indeed pretty bad.
But since then I switched that rental and made another rental and the pricing strikes me as fairly normal. Not cheap and with the usual outrageous taxes and fees but these are with major non-discount rental car companies (albeit with a good corporate discount) but not out of the realm of what I consider "normal."
[deleted]
For anyone looking to rent a car, I'd recommend using autoslash.com
It's an aggregator that allows you to pick from the other aggregators, and you don't pay until you pick up.
The prices are consistently within 10% of the lowest price that I can find online.
You fill out a simple form (pickup/dropoff times/location, car preference), and it emails you quotes. They don't spam me, which is nice.
I tend to request the same quote multiple times over the weeks before my trip. It'll frequently find you something for less than what you initially paid for.
Ignore their janky UI, it's the real deal.
It's an aggregator that allows you to pick from the other aggregators, and you don't pay until you pick up.
The prices are consistently within 10% of the lowest price that I can find online.
You fill out a simple form (pickup/dropoff times/location, car preference), and it emails you quotes. They don't spam me, which is nice.
I tend to request the same quote multiple times over the weeks before my trip. It'll frequently find you something for less than what you initially paid for.
Ignore their janky UI, it's the real deal.
It's been a long, long time since I read an LATimes article. It looks like they finally allowed people from Europe to view their website, after years of blocking it completely due to not willing to deal with GDPR. Well done, and "finally".
I had a terrible experience renting from Klass Wagen in Romania this week. I think they're scamming their customers as much as they can before going bankrupt.
I booked a SUV with my Sapphire Preferred card that has primary car insurance on it but when I went to pick the car up, I had the sleaziest sales experience of my life.
The agent tried to sell me their insurance for $70/day but I told him, no I'm covered. He said due to COVID they have a new policy that any scratch, dent or chip, no matter how small, will be fixed and the cost deducted from my $1700 deposit.
I was ready to decline until he showed me the car I booked. It had so many scratches, dents and damage, including coffee stains on the headliner, that I gave in and took their insurance because I needed to leave that day. As we were taking pictures and documenting the myriad of damage, I realized I was going to be on the hook for something when I returned the car. He said they cash in 90% of deposits... I think that was a lie as well.
Lo and behold, once I took the insurance, I got "upgraded" to a nicer and cleaner car.
After seeing other reviews, a bunch of people fell for the same scam. They must be hemoraging money and have resorted to such scummy practices, it was really off putting.
I'm going to try and do a charge back for the insurance part, I felt really bad after the experience.
I booked a SUV with my Sapphire Preferred card that has primary car insurance on it but when I went to pick the car up, I had the sleaziest sales experience of my life.
The agent tried to sell me their insurance for $70/day but I told him, no I'm covered. He said due to COVID they have a new policy that any scratch, dent or chip, no matter how small, will be fixed and the cost deducted from my $1700 deposit.
I was ready to decline until he showed me the car I booked. It had so many scratches, dents and damage, including coffee stains on the headliner, that I gave in and took their insurance because I needed to leave that day. As we were taking pictures and documenting the myriad of damage, I realized I was going to be on the hook for something when I returned the car. He said they cash in 90% of deposits... I think that was a lie as well.
Lo and behold, once I took the insurance, I got "upgraded" to a nicer and cleaner car.
After seeing other reviews, a bunch of people fell for the same scam. They must be hemoraging money and have resorted to such scummy practices, it was really off putting.
I'm going to try and do a charge back for the insurance part, I felt really bad after the experience.
That whole industry is so weird. This year, I've seen Hertz locations with people waiting for multiple hours (!) to fill out a bunch of papers forms, at least half an hour per rental of just waiting on a human to write up your super-generic contract. Other locations may demand weird shit like a must-have return flight ticket. On the other hand, there is Turo where (once you registered) the whole "typing up the contract and signing it in your blood for 30 minutes" is non-existent: you just find your car and open it, no humans involved, no stupid rental branches with multi-hour lines. Turo is definitely not for everybody, but I think they need to start to learn from each other - it is possible to make the booking and pick-up process instant and save a ton of time (and money).
Neighbor took a vacation to Hawaii a couple months ago. The cars available to rent were $250/day and up. He passed.
Fortunately, there's a car equivalent of AirBNB, and he was able to rent an individual's car for around $80/day (I can't remember the name of the service, unfortunately).
I guess when you're on an island, cars aren't all that fungible.
Fortunately, there's a car equivalent of AirBNB, and he was able to rent an individual's car for around $80/day (I can't remember the name of the service, unfortunately).
I guess when you're on an island, cars aren't all that fungible.
Probably Turo? I’ve used them before to rent high horsepower cars off people.
Turo prices have also gone significantly up...
> getting denied the vehicle they reserved
Why do car rental companies have such a problem with this? I haven't rented a car in 5 years, but I rented a bunch in the 5 years before that. I don't think even once I was actually able to get the car I reserved, they are always out. There's even a joke from the '90s in Seinfeld about this.
Why are car rentals so much worse than other industries with reservations? Rarely would this happen at a restaurant or a hotel. Only cars seem to have this problem.
Why do car rental companies have such a problem with this? I haven't rented a car in 5 years, but I rented a bunch in the 5 years before that. I don't think even once I was actually able to get the car I reserved, they are always out. There's even a joke from the '90s in Seinfeld about this.
Why are car rentals so much worse than other industries with reservations? Rarely would this happen at a restaurant or a hotel. Only cars seem to have this problem.
> Due to a vehicle shortage, the car rental agency offered him a van that he said reeked of cigarettes and marijuana instead of a compact car. Jimenez refused the malodorous van, and after a more than two-hour wait he settled for another van with more than 60,000 miles, visible body damage and a “musty odor” that seemed to come from the air conditioning system.
> A global microchip shortage that has cut production of new cars continues to deal a heavy blow to car rental companies
How is a car shortage an excuse for rental car agencies to act in this unacceptable manner?
If I reserve a specific kind of car, I expect that reserved car to be there. If there is a shortage, then do not make that particular car available on the booking portal.
This is like if you reserved a hotel room, and were put into a janitorial closet instead, with the excuse being that this was because of a wallpaper shortage. This is completely untenable conduct.
> A global microchip shortage that has cut production of new cars continues to deal a heavy blow to car rental companies
How is a car shortage an excuse for rental car agencies to act in this unacceptable manner?
If I reserve a specific kind of car, I expect that reserved car to be there. If there is a shortage, then do not make that particular car available on the booking portal.
This is like if you reserved a hotel room, and were put into a janitorial closet instead, with the excuse being that this was because of a wallpaper shortage. This is completely untenable conduct.
The difference from car rental vs a hotel room or an airplane seat is the fact the the company relies on the previous occupant to return the car on time, which often does not happen. If a person wants to extend a hotel reservation but the hotel is entirely sold out, they say "sorry, too bad." With a rental car people simply don't always bring them back, they pay the extra day fee or whatever, but the car simply isn't there to give to you. It does suck, of course, the best way to prevent this is to pre-pay. This will get you priority among everyone else waiting for cars to become available.
It's understandable if a reserved car occasionally isn't available because it was returned late, but it seems like most car rental companies don't even attempt to limit reservations based on their inventory. It seems like standard industry practice is to accept all reservations, then hope they can somehow come up with the cars, e.g. by borrowing cars from elsewhere.
The other day we were in a queue with ~20 families waiting for the cars they reserved, and it was clear none were available. Surely they didn't have that many late returns.
If there are some companies that do limit their reservations appropriately, I'd like to know their names please :)
The other day we were in a queue with ~20 families waiting for the cars they reserved, and it was clear none were available. Surely they didn't have that many late returns.
If there are some companies that do limit their reservations appropriately, I'd like to know their names please :)
You got a car though, right? Long line, waiting around, of course it sucks but this is meaningless without knowing where you were or the end result. 20 out of thousands (Orlando, Las Vegas)? Not unreasonable at all.
LAX area but it seemed like a small agency. They were processing around 3-4 customers per hour, presumably as returns came in. We got a car after ~2h, but lots of others gave up and left. Hypothetically if nobody gave up, I expect the line would have grown and grown until they eventually closed with a huge line of reservations they couldn't meet.
So you admit it was a small agency, in other words, next time stick with a Hertz, Avis, National, Alamo, etc. In any case you got a car after 2 hours. I'm not denying it sucks, especially with a family, but it happens. Ever had a flight delayed for 2 hours? Happens all the time.
Don't all those companies follow the same practice? I've used most of them and have issues all the time (though in most cases they have some car available, just not what I reserved).
Seems like it's not just me :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T2GmGSNvaM&t=39s
Airlines also overbook but at least they have reasonable limits based on data, and offer compensation for bumps.
Seems like it's not just me :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T2GmGSNvaM&t=39s
Airlines also overbook but at least they have reasonable limits based on data, and offer compensation for bumps.
> The difference from car rental vs a hotel room or an airplane seat is the fact the the company relies on the previous occupant to return the car on time, which often does not happen. If a person wants to extend a hotel reservation but the hotel is entirely sold out, they say "sorry, too bad." With a rental car people simply don't always bring them back, they pay the extra day fee or whatever, but the car simply isn't there to give to you.
If you don't want to vacate your plane seat or your hotel room, you don't just get to say you'll pay for another night or another flight. Why then is this allowed practice for car rentals? The late return fee should be proportionately high so as to very strongly dissuade this kind of behavior.
If you don't want to vacate your plane seat or your hotel room, you don't just get to say you'll pay for another night or another flight. Why then is this allowed practice for car rentals? The late return fee should be proportionately high so as to very strongly dissuade this kind of behavior.
> Why then is this allowed practice for car rentals?
Because the car is a physical object whose entire purpose is for you to take it far away from the rental office.
> The late return fee should be proportionately high
Are you sure you want to advocate for large corporations to add additional, punitive fees to consumers? One day you might need to return a car late, you know, if someone in your party gets sick or something.
They already do charge a lot extra, still, some people pay it. The other part is there is no fixed time where everything switches over. Hotels have a fixed check-out time for everybody, doesn't matter if you checked in at 3pm the or 11pm. Cars work on a 24-hour schedule, if you rented the car in the evening, you can keep it till the evening. Sometimes people return them early, if they have a flight to catch or whatever, some people keep the car as long as possible. Usually this is managed just fine, but sure, occasionally, demand exceeds supply and the car isn't immediately available. Flights get delayed too, sometimes, perhaps you've noticed.
Because the car is a physical object whose entire purpose is for you to take it far away from the rental office.
> The late return fee should be proportionately high
Are you sure you want to advocate for large corporations to add additional, punitive fees to consumers? One day you might need to return a car late, you know, if someone in your party gets sick or something.
They already do charge a lot extra, still, some people pay it. The other part is there is no fixed time where everything switches over. Hotels have a fixed check-out time for everybody, doesn't matter if you checked in at 3pm the or 11pm. Cars work on a 24-hour schedule, if you rented the car in the evening, you can keep it till the evening. Sometimes people return them early, if they have a flight to catch or whatever, some people keep the car as long as possible. Usually this is managed just fine, but sure, occasionally, demand exceeds supply and the car isn't immediately available. Flights get delayed too, sometimes, perhaps you've noticed.
This can not be a serious question.
Rental car companies cannot control their inventory as well as we might hope. Sometimes cars are returned early. Sometimes late. Sometimes late and in need of maintenance. Sometimes people cancel. If the rental agency planned for these contingencies with additional inventory, that would just be extra cars lying around depreciating most of the time. I think we are to understand from their "untenable conduct" is that margins are too low to not be cleverly utilizing all of their inventory JIT-style, and nobody in their market segment wants to pay higher fees in exchange for a guaranteed vehicle model.
> Rental car companies cannot control their inventory as well as we might hope.
Why not? Make a late return fee sufficiently high, and see if suddenly inventory control becomes a lot easier.
Why not? Make a late return fee sufficiently high, and see if suddenly inventory control becomes a lot easier.
Depends. I wouldn't want to get slapped with a high fee if I were held up in traffic, I'd end up renting elsewhere. Also, I've heard that rental agencies often lend vehicles between one another, which could further complicate the issues that make capacity unreliable.
And everyone just uses the competition.
I agree that it's wrong for rental car companies to use the term "reserve" in this was, but it's by now standard practice. They absolutely do not have a physical car (or one of a set of a class of car) guaranteed to be available. Instead, they make statistical predictions; usually they do have the car, or at worse a nicer car that they will upgrade you to for free. But when there is a supply shock, all bets are off.
If I reserve something, I expect it to be there. Car rental companies should not be allowed to play the game of lying to consumers under the understanding that lying is "by now standard practice". This is what consumer protection laws are explicitly for. If a car rental company wants to 'play the odds' and say that they're likely, but not definitely, going to have a car available, then sure that's their prerogative, BUT then they should not be legally allowed to make it appear like you are actually reserving a vehicle that will be there...that is fraud.
Let's look at an analogy with even just the same object. Let's say I run a car dealership. 9 times out of 10 you get the car that I told you you're going to get. But every tenth time, I just happen to be out of stock because I didn't predict that a market could have shortages and didn't plan accordingly. In that instance, I then give you a completely different car than the one you thought you were buying, oh and this one also happens to reek of vomit and smoke. This would not in a million years be acceptable.
Let's look at an analogy with even just the same object. Let's say I run a car dealership. 9 times out of 10 you get the car that I told you you're going to get. But every tenth time, I just happen to be out of stock because I didn't predict that a market could have shortages and didn't plan accordingly. In that instance, I then give you a completely different car than the one you thought you were buying, oh and this one also happens to reek of vomit and smoke. This would not in a million years be acceptable.
I think you, personally, have no right to complain because you know what "reserve" means in this context. Every single car rental company does this. If another consumer is misled because they honestly interpreted "reserve" literally, they might have a claim. But you and I would not.
> then give you a completely different car than the one you thought you were buying
Like the Wagon Queen Family Truckster? Damn fine automobile, beats the hell out of the sports wagon.
Like the Wagon Queen Family Truckster? Damn fine automobile, beats the hell out of the sports wagon.
In fact there was a Seinfeld episode about this!
It has been a problem for a very long time.
It has been a problem for a very long time.
It is not so much a problem as a simple reality that the cost of fulfilling every reservation exactly is (for example) 10x then it is worth fulfilling only 99% of reservations at a cost of 1x.
Car rental customers are not going to pay 10x to get that extra 1% of guarantee, and you simply will not see that type of car rental business exist. It simply is not economical to build enough redundancy for the 1% of the time there is a problem.
Of course, it also is not economical to build enough redundancy for multi year pandemic situations.
Car rental customers are not going to pay 10x to get that extra 1% of guarantee, and you simply will not see that type of car rental business exist. It simply is not economical to build enough redundancy for the 1% of the time there is a problem.
Of course, it also is not economical to build enough redundancy for multi year pandemic situations.
Where are you getting this "only 1% of reservations are not available" figure from?
I’m just making assumptions, but the point is a sufficiently small number of people are being disappointed such that the business is still viable (shown by the fact that it stays in business even though they cannot guarantee every reservation).
Presumably the market is capable of coming close to the solution where people are willing to pay $x for a y% chance of having their needs meet, such that sufficient people will not pay $x+z to get a 100% chance of having their needs met.
Presumably the market is capable of coming close to the solution where people are willing to pay $x for a y% chance of having their needs meet, such that sufficient people will not pay $x+z to get a 100% chance of having their needs met.
Could the business not be 'viable' owing to the fact that there is simply no alternative? If the choice is between making a "reservation" that may or may not be available and between definitely not having a car, obviously everyone is going to pick the former, but that could be within bounds of 99% of those picking the former still being disappointed, just having no other option.
There have been many car rental companies for many decades competing with each other. If it were true that sufficient people were willing to pay for 100% reliability, then it stands to reason one of the car rental companies would have championed that guarantee and succeeded.
It is not like it was an unknown issue, having even been in the plot of one of the episodes of one of the most popular television show of the 90s.
Even today, there are 3 car rental companies, Enterprise, Avis, and Hertz, and any one has the option of offering a 100% guarantee, but they do not.
Hotels do not either. And neither do airlines. You can get walked to another hotel, or bumped to another flight (assuming you are not a VIP of some kind).
Which tells me guaranteeing the last 1% (or whatever small percentage of people that cannot be accommodated) is too costly and customers would rather save money instead of pay for the redundancies needed.
It is not like it was an unknown issue, having even been in the plot of one of the episodes of one of the most popular television show of the 90s.
Even today, there are 3 car rental companies, Enterprise, Avis, and Hertz, and any one has the option of offering a 100% guarantee, but they do not.
Hotels do not either. And neither do airlines. You can get walked to another hotel, or bumped to another flight (assuming you are not a VIP of some kind).
Which tells me guaranteeing the last 1% (or whatever small percentage of people that cannot be accommodated) is too costly and customers would rather save money instead of pay for the redundancies needed.
Somehow this article doesn’t mention Turo. There are a dozen Tesla Model 3s available to rent on Turo around LAX right now. Many less than $100/day.
Life will continue to be a pain in 2022 ...
[deleted]
I just took a cross-country trip and rented cars in 3 different states. My experience was fine, and the prices were about normal, if not cheap.
I'm sure there will be problems, but it's very possible that the media will be exaggerating for headlines. It's not like a rental car will just fall apart if it's kept and maintained for an extra year or two. They're made of metal, not paper mache, and replacement parts are still available.
I'm sure there will be problems, but it's very possible that the media will be exaggerating for headlines. It's not like a rental car will just fall apart if it's kept and maintained for an extra year or two. They're made of metal, not paper mache, and replacement parts are still available.
Europe too - I was looking at my 2019 contract for 30 days car rental out of Nice airport - 238 euro. The cheapest one now - 741 euro or 3x near enough.
Ehh services like turo will bubble up, I just got back from a 5000 mile road trip in a turo car, cost less than enterprise would, and had a much better car.
I'm usually not big on gig economy services, but this one has made it much easier, and the owner of the vehicle was stoked, he earned 2 car payments in 9 days.
* I'm not plugging turo, I just don't know any others in that space and is the one I use.
I'm usually not big on gig economy services, but this one has made it much easier, and the owner of the vehicle was stoked, he earned 2 car payments in 9 days.
* I'm not plugging turo, I just don't know any others in that space and is the one I use.
San Francisco, Portland, New York, European Cities, etc.