Hacker News Reader

Also think about how much easier it is to buy used vehicles. All the car buying websites have changed the auto sales industry in the last 10 years. The used car market is much bigger now and more selection, meanwhile consumers are more informed as ever on the value of new cars.

Though as much as the article talks about cultural preferences of Gen Y, I think the "cheapness" is being driven solely by Gen Y having no money. Sure you can say you don't need your car as a status symbol, but if you were making 40% more in salary and didn't have $100k in student debt, you'd get a nicer car.

We all entered college as tuition skyrocketed and yet the real value of a degree is shrinking, and we all graduated into a decade of zero economic growth. We're masking our (relative) poverty by being content with all are parents old used stuff and calling it "cool".

I don't have £100,000 in student debt - because I didn't go to university. I'm not rich, but I'm financially independent. The only thing that would push me to get a nicer car would be better reliability, or better gas mileage - which both save you money (in gas, and repair bills / wasted time) in the long run. Car ownership is purely financial for me.

> younger generations don't see a house or a car as a symbol of status or wealth, merely as something to be used, as a necessity

And then there are fixies - impractical bikes that cost 700 euro simply because they are cool. Whereas you can get a practical bike for less than 200 euro.

Maybe it is that we are cheap, so those things that cost beyond a certain threshold (like cars and housing) just need to work, whereas things under a threshold need to work and be cool.

iPhones also strike me as an example of this. Ray Ban glasses as well. A lot of clothing stuff ... actually pretty much everything but houses, cars and the big expenses must be cool enough to be bought.

> Bikes

Fixies aren't really popular beyond the hipster demographic; while there are a lot of bikes that cost >$500 dollars, they're generally bought by serious bikers for whom the value proposition is more than worth it.

> iPhone

The only thing exorbitant to me about the iPhone is the data plan, because of how often I'm in the range of WiFi. I'd argue having a personal GPS, email client, information lookup, etc. etc. is more than worth the monthly fee -- I've been lost in the country enough times.

> RayBans

Sunglasses, unfortunately, are in a stranglehold market. You either spend $20 and get colored glass or spend $200 and get an actual product (at a ridiculous markup.)

(That being said, I've had my same pair of RayBans for 8 years. They hold up well.

Sunglasses, unfortunately, are in a stranglehold market. You either spend $20 and get colored glass or spend $200 and get an actual product

I've found pretty much the opposite.

I've owned 3-4 pairs of expensive sunglasses in my life, and all but one of them was crap. I'm convinced that the price differential is for nothing but a designer name.

My favorite sunglasses ever I paid $25 for at Rite-Aid, and I liked it so much I bought another pair to keep in the car. They're polarized, the optics seem good, they're solid and durable, comfortable, and don't make me look like a madman. What else do I need?

What else do I need?

I think the parent says the cheaper sunglasses lacks UV protection.

Well, that rack at Rite-Aid is full of glasses that claim to have UVA and UVB protection. Is the concern that these claims are false? Or that the degree of protection is insufficient?

Speaking as a bit of a layman on the subject, but I know Oakleys are rated for some level of impact resistance (I think they're polycarbonate lenses like in prescription glasses vs. regular "shattering" plastic that may be found in cheaper sunglasses). It might be important to you if you're the active type.

I'm kind of in a lucky demographic when it comes to sunglasses. I live in the midwest, drive a beat-up old truck, grew up in the countryside, watch NASCAR and baseball, and fish as a hobby. This affords me the luxury of being able to get away with wearing $20 sunglasses I bought at WalMart without anyone thinking twice about it. It just fits in with the rest of my exterior-facing personality. This is good, because with my relaxation hobbies, I tend to lose or break my cheap sunglasses a few times per year in situations where even Ray Bans would be lost or broken. With $20 shades, I don't need to worry.

We all choose what demographic we're going to fit in with, and with that comes tradeoffs. I have many expensive computers and the latest smartphone. This forces me to be frugal with the cost of my vehicle and the price tag on my jeans, allowing me to be "that redneck who turns into a nerd during the week" as well as "that nerd who turns into a redneck on the weekends".

I think more than the frugal generation, we're the generation who feels free to choose who we want to be and balance the tradeoffs we have to make. No longer does end goal have to be a house in the suburbs, two kids, and this year's nicest sedan, nor are our cliques set in stone. I can be both a nerd and a redneck, I can listen to both techno and country, and that's not weird. I don't have to own the nicest of everything in order to be a part of society.

> Sunglasses, unfortunately, are in a stranglehold market.

Most of the sunglass brands that people know, and the stores they buy them from, are owned by a single company:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870451890457536...

This sort of extreme economic consolidation hiding behind an apparently wide range of retailers and/or brands is very common. You could make the same observation, say, of laptops (Foxconn), consumer goods (Proctor & Gamble), or ag products (Monsanto, ConAgra).

Hm, in America fixies are pretty universally beater bikes that someone took the gears off of to make rideable again.

Ha, I guess this depends where in America.

You may feel fixies are impractical but they carry benefits. The primary one being better power transfer. Second, you can often make a cheap fixie by finding an old frame, refurbishing it, and replacing the rear hub. Yes, you can buy them for $700+ but unlike iPhones, there are a number of ways to obtain one for cheap.

Further, a bike that costs less than $200 is certainly not a bike I would buy for commuting. Having commuted without a car for over three years, I can assure you that steel frames are not your friend and arguably not practical if you want to enjoy your lifestyle.

So, for those of us who know nothing about bikes, why are steel frames suboptimal for commuting?

Weight.

Weight, as long as it isn't excessive, is only something racers need to worry about. I own aluminum and steel frame bicycles and the main difference is how the different materials feel when going across bumps. The weight difference is probably there, but it's not big enough to notice.

They aren't, IMO. They don't weigh much more (and seriously what kind of commute do you have that weight matters that much? This isn't the tour de france...)

The ride of a decent steel bike is much softer (less harsh) than an aluminum bike. An old steel 10 speed with tension shifters (less fiddly/adjustment prone) is my idea of a perfect commuter bike...

Was about to post the same thing but you said it all.

Steel vs aluminum is like vi vs emacs. People argue about it all the time, but if you just go test ride some bikes you'll find out pretty quite which you prefer.

I like steel. Aluminum is just too bone-jarring.

Really low end steel is usually heavy. On the high end though (Pegoretti, etc), they're plenty light and ride like a dream. The "common $700 fixie" - the Bianchi Pista - is steel. They all rust when abused though.

Well, my dream bike wouldn't really work as a fixie. But then again, it probably wouldn't work very well for commuting either - I use a longboard for that.

However, I'd love to try riding a fixie some time. It sounds interesting.

I disagree re: steel frames. All of my bikes are steel, from my race bike (yes, actually raced... well, in the past) to my city bike. The race bike weighs in right around where the aluminum bike it replaced came in.

Steel rides great. Cheap steel will weigh more than cheap aluminum, but is not that much heavier once you factor in yourself and what you carry.

The nice thing about steel is that it's repairable, rides nicely, and fails gracefully (should it fail at all).

> I can assure you that steel frames are not your friend

Speaking as one who spent $3500 on a steel-framed commuting/winter training bike, I obviously disagree. Aluminum rides rough and carbon is just silly on a commuter.

Though to give you the benefit of the doubt, you did mention "<$200". I think that's more the issue than what the frame is made of.

> You may feel fixies are impractical but they carry benefits. The primary one being better power transfer.

Huh? The "chain loss" is the same during power. There's some friction loss when you're not pedaling a "not fixie" but there's also a "friction loss" in your legs when you're spinning just to keep a fixie's wheels turning.

> Second, you can often make a cheap fixie by finding an old frame, refurbishing it, and replacing the rear hub.

A coaster hub isn't that much more expensive and the user-experience is much better for most people. (That said, a coaster hub with some gears is reasonably cheap.)

And, replacing a hub is work (or expensive). It's often easier/cheaper to just find a rear wheel.

I work in central London and see a lot of people riding about on these bikes, clearly very expensive ones often too. This is a part of town where it's impossible to park, the traffic is terrible, and you have to pay[1] to drive there at all. I definitely see the fixie (or really the bike in general) taking over from the car as a status symbol for some people. Driving a car through Soho marks you out as either rich or stupid or both, a bike has a whole set of other connotations about fitness, ethics, intelligence. The expensive ones also carry wealth sat us of course.

I think the point is, that while it's true they are often status symbols, there is a practical motivation behind them too.

[1] Congestion Charge - http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/congestioncharging/

I dunno man, stuff like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwwWqRV2RsI

Makes me think its just a matter of the younger generation not having the money to buy a car. They spend it all on smaller, indulgent purchases and fail at saving.

You're right: cars are a means to an end. The incremental value provided by a luxury car over a regular car is exceedingly slight, and ends up going negative when you compare long term maintenance and gas prices.

The entire problem with luxury cars is summed up in the word 'luxury': burning cash for social proof.

The incremental value is entirely dependent on the person buying the car. I've owned a mercedes for 8 years and when I drive other peoples cars I go crazy because of the little things I take for granted in my car.

I finally got a car since I was able to land an abusrdly cheap loan (2%!), but still won't touch a house. Real estate where I live is absurd, and I do not live in one of the big prestigious cities. (I used to, and real estate there was incomprehensible.)

Why did you need a loan to buy a car? I just waited a couple of months until I'd saved enough to buy a small, fairly old car for cash. It's not a fancy car, but it is reliable, cheap to run, cheap to insure, and costs me nothing in terms of financing now.