Hacker News Reader

Comment by save_ferris | Hacker News Reader

The fear of "looking poor" is so real in the US, which makes it harder to see who's struggling. It also creates this cognitive dissonance I've noticed here on HN where an article gets posted with pictures of the extended lines at food banks and people point out that most people seem to be driving relatively new cars, therefore why are they in line at a food bank?

I think a lot of people don't understand how poverty really looks because we're socially motivated to project wealth and status wherever we can.

View on HN

Another aspect is that selling used stuff doesn’t bring much money in, especially clothing. I don’t even know whether it’s sellable.

Apart from my car, if I sell all my belongings, I might get one month worth of rent. Hardly seems worth it, unless there is a way to use that money to earn more money.

Also can’t sell or trade your car to downgrade if you need a car, as if you need financing to get the next car, you’re not going to qualify for the loan if you’re without employment. Your car is a trailing indicator of your financial situation, not necessarily present state.

The fact that most jobs require a car is a huge deterrent for most low income people to actually find a job. Great public transit is not just something to help the poor, it's also a way to make workers be able to get to work, it's good for the economy and yet we look at it almost as charity.

Public transit spreads viruses, both old and new. It helped put us in this mess. It'll spread the next virus too. We have a huge problem if people get used to relying on a transportation method that needs to be shut down when a virus spreads.

Financing cars is a poverty trap. There are cars in the 1-2k range that work perfectly fine and will reliably work with minimal maintenance, and there are sub 1k cars that run ok enough that you can use as a bridge to save enough for a slightly better car.

Financing a car is a double whammy because you pay interest and have a deprecating asset. At the low end cars really don't deprecate much. The act of not having a car payment is a great first step to building wealth.

Financing part of a $10,000 vehicle is incredibly cheap right now. A few hundred dollars total to borrow for several years.

Financing a 10k car is "cheap" if you have decent credit and aren't rolling negative equity from another car into that. Using average rates it represents a 10-15% additional cost over the principal, and you end up with a car worth about half that. With a 60 month loan you "spent" $6-7k to have a car for those 5 years, if you keep it another 5 years the numbers look better.

aren't rolling negative equity from another car into that.

Yes, that would not anymore fit into the description of financing part of a 10k car.

> There are cars in the 1-2k range that work perfectly fine and will reliably work with minimal maintenance

> At the low end cars really don't deprecate much

I tried the whole Tropical MBA buy-an-old-car thing. Went with a 10-year-old Camry that KBB'd around $5k, had it inspected before I purchased it, and everything seemed fine. 6 months in, I ran into an issue that required the entire electrical system to be replaced which pretty much totaled the car. I wound up getting about 15% of what I paid for the car back out of it after 6 months of ownership.

Bottom line is that the old car napkin math works as long as the vehicle doesn't run into serious issues, because the moment it does, it really doesn't make much sense unless you're willing and able to do serious work on your own car.

Charities barely even want used clothes donations any more. Only a few top designer labels have any significant resale value.

> Charities barely even want used clothes donations any more. Only a few top designer labels have any significant resale value.

Long ago, I volunteered once at a thrift store. IIRC, they actually bailed up a significant fraction of their clothing donations and sent them Africa.

It is very real, but if you can somehow escape from it there are huge advantages.

Not caring that we might look poor has been the biggest factor enabling me and my wife to build a good, stable life for ourselves while peers who out-earn us perpetually struggle on the brink of ruin.

> but if you can somehow escape from it

Not sure what you mean by this. There's nothing to escape from. The word we have for superficial consumerist social strivers who spend conspicuously to soothe their ego and signal their status is "asshole". Don't be an asshole. It's not that hard.

cars made in the last 15 years don’t look that different from each other. You can purchase a 7-8 yo mass market vehicle for 2-6k that will run alright.

Having used cars older than that as a daily driver, the cost of repairs/downtime outstrip the cost of replacing the vehicle more often than not. Not driving isn’t really an option in the US, and driving a clunker will raise some flags to coworkers/other parents in the parking lot.

The other cash poor option is to grab a lease with good incentives, it’s a terrible deal - but it’s the best if you need to conserve cash flow month to month ( particularly if you can’t afford fixing a breakdown )

Which is all to say, if your poor - driving a half broken down car would be a terrible investment.

Glancing at craigslist here, the first 3 vehicles under $6000 are a 2010, a 2008 and a 2006. The low mileage of the group is 133,000. They are dealer listings also, so probably not the best deals, but there aren't many others at the price.

That is because the cash-for-clunkers program, intended to help the automobile industry, sent the older cars to be destroyed. We crushed perfectly usable vehicles. That's like breaking windows to help the glass industry; it is not so nice for the poor or for the environment.

It was tiny (relative to the US vehicle market, ~700,000 vehicles vs ~15 million annually) and obviously didn't remove 2010+ cars from the market.

Which those more recent vehicles are the vehicles the other poster alluded to, that I did not find with a real basic search.

This is talking cars in last decade. Not cash for clunkers. Which likely isn’t a big enough of a dent to mess with cars made after it

Not sure what is wrong with a 200x car that has 133K miles. With diligent routine maintenance, most cars from that era should last another 133K miles easily. I remember the days when it was good advice to avoid cars with over 100K miles on them, but that time is in the distant past. I would buy a 200K mile 2006 Toyota Camry today without any hesitation.

Nothing particularly wrong with them, they just (completely) fail the 8 year old, $6,000 bar set by the poster I replied to. Looking, I see 2006 Camry's with 100,000+ miles pricing out at $6,000.

I was questioning their characterization of the used vehicle market.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com