Many of us don't have the desire or ability to cough up $50,000+ for a badly made piece of shit that does nothing but violate our privacy and contributes to everything we hate about our cities.
This seems disingenuous. Privacy concerns are valid, but you can get a new car (Ford Maverick) for $25k. The hybrid powertrain would only be $1k more, for an ~40% reduction in fuel consumption
Yea I agree $40k is a bit disingenuous. But the cost of a car is more than the car itself. It's better to view it as a ongoing expense of fuel, insurance, maintenance, etc. AAA estimates between 7-10k a year. https://www.aaa.com/autorepair/articles/average-annual-cost-of-new-vehicle-ownership
I disagree. In my experience with the younger folk, it's almost always an issue that driving is way too expensive for what you get.
You can do almost everything that would've necessitated owning a car on the internet now, and the cost of your car payment, insurance and registration, and gas is just way too high for the things that still require it. It's cheaper to just pay a taxi or find someone to give you a ride for the few times you actually need it.
$50k???
the most expensive car I have ever purchased was 11% of that.
the gap doesn't seem massive, couldn't this just be importance of owning a car by "stage of life?" obviously people with kids, jobs, no knees etc... need cars more than uni students.
Honestly geography seems to be the most important factor, rather than generation.
This. I'm one of those older millennials... Over 40. I wouldn't have a car if I didn't live in the middle of nowhere.
The past few years I've mainly been working from home, so during that time, the only reason I still had a car is that I had already bought it. I still work from home, and if my car stops working, I'll be hard pressed to find a reason to buy a replacement. The only good reason I have is for work, since I occasionally need to travel to a place for my job. And honestly, that's the only valid reason I have right now to continue owning one.
Or, just affordability?
Things just cost a lot more nowadays, and if you're young it's unlikely you're earning much. Hell, it's also possible that their parents missed the boat on salaries rivalling house prices.
The average new vehicle is $66,422 CAD and the average for a used vehicle is $37,662, as per autotrader.ca. A new vehicle is nearly the same as an entire year's salary of an average Canadian according to statscan and that doesn't account for the total cost of ownership.
Am I the only one annoyed at the graph being backwards? The past goes on the left, the present on the right.
No, you are not alone. It makes it harder to read.
Not if you look at it by age number smallest to largest
yeah but that's not the message you want to convey. if you're talking about difference in generations, you're essentially talking about change through time. so the x axis should represent time from past to present. therefore you should do it by age from highest to lowest.
Why would we do that when it's categorized by age group?
Owning a car is less important to younger people.
That’s an important distinction. Unless these generations were all queried at the same age, that is.
Good question. It's possible all this poll is showing is that old people aren't physically as able to use other methods.
Mobility is just as important for young people. The difference is that cars are much less affordable for young people who are choosing better alternatives such as transit and bikes.
I'd love to not have a car, but there's not a train that runs to the slopes and the busses cost more than twice as much as the gas to get there.
Ideally busses would be cheaper/subsidized, but driving for recreation is valid. Carpool if you can.
In that case, we believe that driving makes sense. For distances within a suburban county while not carrying anyone else though, not really.
Do younger generations also more commonly live in urban areas? Because I can't imagine living where I do without a car. Nothing is within walking distance and if you want to go to another town, you have 1 chance a day to take the bus.
I certainly don't want to have to have a car, but I do have to have one. :/
I don't know why anyone wants a car. I have one because I might have to for work and generally my wife needs to for her medical issues. I sure don't want one though. I would say its important though. I live in a transit friendly city but not having one is still limiting unfortunately. The ideal thing if you have to have a car is for it to be mostly parked at home.
The “I live in a transit friendly city.” Is uh, pretty rare in America.
It’s also time investment issue for people who work. I drive to work in the morning, it saves me 1.5hrs compared to taking the bus under normal operations (it would only actually be like an hour and 10m extra most days because I work at a school and they have a direct bus for that but I’m ignoring that since most don’t have that luxury.)
That’s just on the way to work. It’d also make me 15m late every day. That’s also assuming it stays exactly on schedule.
If that’s the same on the way home that’s 3 extra hours a day wasted.
Cars are fun to me, especially older cars that have character and aren't so big and soundproof. I live out in the mountains and it really is a good time to go for a Sunday drive along twisty roads, no real destination in mind. For instance, in the fall, after a rain, with windows down, the vivid colors and smells help me slow down, clear my mind and remind me I'm part of the world, not just a passive observer.
And yes, I realize what sub this is in.
They are fun and I didn't sit in traffic all day 🤷♂️
It all depends on where you live. Where was the survey done?
Exactly. I don't know how the statistics had been done, but at least where I live, I really need to drive given how bad the public transport is. And I live in a city!
I agree. I had to terminate an employee that relied on Uber. As much it's a shitty move, my company doesn't fuck around when it comes to attendance. If you are over 10 minutes late multiple times you get fired.
Now it's usually pretty easy for me to be on time and we pay really well. So it's worth it. But not having reliable transportation directly affected his attendance. Is that because we live in an area that is dense and getting an Uber can take a bit at times? Is it any better in the country? Was there anything else he could have done to make it easier?
Maybe. But ultimately it came down to him not being dependable.
Less important, or less affordable? If you know you'll never be able to afford something, eventually you find ways to work around it in your head.
tons of reasons not to have a car. affordability, spying, anti-right to repair, gas cost based entirely on fuck you, electrics only come in huge and 5 years of income, designers have no aesthetic sense, elon exists at all, etc.
Is it not at all age related as well? When I was 20 and in college I didn't need a car at all. But now working and living in the Midwest a car is much more necessary.
It's worse than that. The age range literally includes 12 year olds.
Sounds good. But how do we know whether it's due to them being younger currently or a generational difference? Maybe in 16.5 years Gen Z will reach the same levels the Millenials currently show.
I wonder where the results of this research come from.
Even with a size of 10,000+ people, I would definitely like to see the information on where they live, because that is a massive factor.
I live in a place with ok (not great but not horrible) public transportation. Problem is, it's way cheaper for me to drive to work than to take public transportation.
It costs me 4$ a week in fuel to drive to work. A monthly transit pass is more than 100$. Even with an honored citizen pass which is just under 30$, it's still cheaper for me to drive to work.
This doesn't include other costs from driving obviously in which it would be overall cheaper to take public transit, however it's overly time consuming just to get to a local store and back home due to a lack of better transit. It would take me almost an hour one way just to go 3 miles to the local grocery store.
I'm not saying cars are better by any means, but the necessity is very much dependent on where people live, so the data could be skewed simply by that factor alone.
I lived in mainland Japan for a while, the public transit system is amazing. What also helps is that there are smaller local places where you can simply walk to in order to get groceries or other necessities.
I wish the US wasn't stuck in this capitalistic nightmare and just started heavily investing in public transit. Then, in places where transit is fully functional (and reasonable), start pushing an occasional non driving day, with free or reduced fare transit. Anything to slowly integrate public transit systems into people's daily lives so it isn't seen as some lower tier form of transport or a hunge inconvenience.
It costs me 4$ a week in fuel to drive to work. A monthly transit pass is more than 100$. Even with an honored citizen pass which is just under 30$, it’s still cheaper for me to drive to work.
You are committing a mortal sin of personal finance - equating vehicle cost with gas cost. It is this precise mistake that results in countless American families literally driving themselves into poverty. The cost of gas is only a small fraction of the per-mile cost to operate a vehicle. This is one of the single biggest mistakes people mistake when assessing their personal finances, deciding on how far to live from work, deciding whether to drive or fly for a trip, etc.
All of the costs of vehicle ownership scale with mileage. Cars depreciate faster the more you drive them. The more you drive, the greater the chance of an accident and a resultingly higher insurance premium. Every mile you drive means more maintenance and burns through ever-more of your car's finite lifespan. Gas is the only one of these you feel so directly, but ALL of the costs of operating a vehicle scale with mileage.
It is difficult to calculate the true total cost of vehicle ownership, but a good approximation is the IRS mileage rate, which is 67 cents per mile. This is the IRS's best figuring of the average cost to operate a vehicle, averaged across the US vehicle fleet. Obviously it will be higher or lower depending on the precise vehicle you drive, how reckless a driver you are, etc.
But let's be generous and assume an average mpg efficiency of 35 mpg. If gas costs $3.50/gallon, then gas costs you about 10 cents per mile. Averaged across the US vehicle fleet, gas costs less 20% of the actual cost of operating a vehicle. A car is a big expensive asset that you burn through just like you burn through gas. Every mile you drive a vehicle gets it one mile closer to the junkyard.
This is what creates the illusion of driving being cheaper than it actually is. I mean, just think about it from first principles. A bigger vehicle like a train or bus is obviously going to be a hell of a lot cheaper to move a person the same distance. It's simple economies of scale. When you buy a transit pass, you are paying for your share of the full cost of operating a bus or train, not just the fuel cost.
If you want to calculate the true cost of operating a vehicle, a rough method is to take what you spend on gas and multiply by 5. That's a lot closer to your true cost per mile of owning and operating a vehicle.
I didn't read through your whole comment to be clear, but your first sentence clearly points out that you either didn't read or understand that I specifically said "That doesn't include other costs from driving obviously in which it would be overall cheaper to take public transit..." And then I equate the lost time due to not having the best public transportation as being part of the issue.
I don't care what the value of my car is. I'm not holding it as an asset like an investment. It is a tool to get me back and forth to where I need to go because public transportation is not the most effective means of travel where I live.
I need to walk excessively far to get to a bus stop, having to haul around a child while doing so makes it that much more complicated.
That being said, there are times where say, I would like to go to an event in the inner city. I will drive to a park and ride and take the train, but the nearest park and ride to the trains are a 20 minute drive away.
So while you are talking about costs and valuation etc. I have already adjusted for that but didn't go into the specific details because the lack of a good transportation system is the biggest reason that I don't use it as much as I would like.
Yes, overall it is cheaper, but due to factors outside of my control (aside from voting and trying to be more involved when I can with public relations in regards to transportation) it is still more feasible for me to use personal transportation rather than public.
A second example is this, it takes me well over an hour on public transit to take my kid to one of their weekly meetings. It takes me 10 minutes to drive there with moderate traffic.
Trust me when I say that I would absolutely love to not need to drive a vehicle however it is simply unfeasible with my current responsibilities.
Edit just for clarity: Trying not to give too much personal info but I also have to move between various work sites throughout the day for which there are no public transportation options. So it basically negates anything I've said in terms of cost for fuel, maintenance etc. but it does leave me with no choice but to drive.
Iirc, a company vehicle was worth around 8 grand in salary back before covid. I'm not sure what it would be today, though.
I think it's a pretty universal trend as well, at least in developed countries. I think I remember hearing it's the same trend in Germany, which is a country with a historicaly strong car culture like the US. But I don't have a study to back that up.
