Hacker News Reader

Comment by queuebert | Hacker News Reader

You're out of touch with the working class. Some people practically live in these trucks. A little comfort goes a long way toward making their day bearable. Leather is easy to clean, power adjustment makes the seat more comfortable. Auto wipers, climate, etc., help them focus on the calls they're taking. And so on. Fleets of these are bought for commercial purposes as well. Companies wouldn't spend that kind of money without a reason.

There's a reason these "luxobarges" are the best selling vehicle in the U.S., and the answer is not virtue signaling.

View on HN

Brother, people are scraping by right now. Auto loan defaults are nearing all-time highs. Car loan lengths are longer than ever. The average age of a vehicle on the road is something like 14 years old now.

I promise you with all my heart, those luxobarges are not being purchased because they’re practical in any way, shape, or form. It’s 110% virtue signaling.

I don’t get the recent internet trend of trying to excuse any bad behavior by saying it’s all actually very logical and simply a tragedy of reality. Nobody is buying a gigantic vehicle because it has seats that are easy to clean. Nobody is buying an expensive ride because they just NEED those auto rain wipers.

People are bad with money, and keeping up with the Joneses has always been a high priority in American culture. I see people making $20-25/hr driving brand new Cadillac SUVs. I talk to my car selling friends, and they have the loan rates for 6-10 years memorized, not 3-5 years. Nobody does those anymore.

Of course there is an enormous amount of virtue signaling around cars. It’s one of the strongest social signals people purchase.

> they have the loan rates for 6-10 years memorized, not 3-5 years

Playing Devil's Advocate, if you're going to be fucked either way, why not be fucked and have a nice truck than not?

It seems like, at least from an uninformed EU perspective, that if the "system" gives you the ability to get a big truck for no worse off that if you weren't going to get it, why wouldn't you?

It seems like auto manufacturers overly inflated their prices, and the loan issuers are mopping up said inflation back - so in the end the borrower (at least if poor and they're going to default either way) is better off getting more truck for their buck than less.

Because most people who are fucked, are fucked due to terrible money spending habits. Tons and tons of people who make six figures are living paycheck to paycheck. Not because they must but because they won't stop spending poorly.

Again, I don't understand the desperate internet trend of defending terrible choices by focusing on the, like, 0.001% of people who do everything right and still fail. We've got the highest living standards on the planet. It's absolutely a choice.

I was hoping for some genuine counterpoints but this just feels like a rant? It feels like the stereotypical response that millennials could afford property if only they didn’t spend their money on avocado toast at Starbucks.

Let’s say a normal car costs you $200/month and a big truck costs 400.

200 is not going to make a difference in your situation - you are either good either way or close to breaking point and therefore fucked either way (if not this month, then the next one when you have an unexpected large expense).

If you’re fucked, why not take advantage as much as possible and get the most truck for your buck? Well “your buck” in quotes but you get my point.

If my budget was at breaking point and for only 200 bucks extra (one time payment since I’m gonna default next month) you can bet I’m gonna take advantage and get another ~20k worth of truck that I’ll get to keep until the bankruptcy proceedings complete (at which point the extra would’ve depreciated off anyway). Or is there something I’m missing?

I don't think most people are buying trucks and then defaulting the next month either that's a bizarre argument to make. And 200 a month is a lot of money!

200 * 12 = 2400 * 4 years( let's be real it would be longer ) = 9600. That IS a lot of money, it's not going to solve every problem immediately but applying the mindset of whatever Im screwed so I might as well set my money on fire is exactly how people keep sinking into the hole. You take the 200 extra on the car, on the apartment, the 150 pants. Its death by a thousand paper cuts and it will make a bad situation much worse.

The thing you’re missing is that it isn’t a $200 difference. Auto loans above $1k/mo are becoming common now vs the $400 for something “affordable”. Since people don’t have large down payments, the monthly rate scales beyond linearly to offset default risk with the loan upside down.

You’re also presenting a false scenario of “screwed either way”. One decision is getting a car that doesn’t leave you with $10k+ negative equity in a year because you did $1000 down on a $85k truck financed over 10 years with an 8% rate. That’s a decade long financial albatross that will cost you $150k by the time it’s done.

The alternative is you put $1k down on a $30k vehicle over 4 years with the same monthly payment and never end up with negative equity.

The gulfs here are enormous and the “screwed either way” altitude is pure defeatist financial ignorance.

If you think people are spending just $200-400/mo on a car, I can see why you don't understand how bad this situation is. Most people are spending more like $700-1000/mo.

It has nothing to do with avocado toast, though that wasn't nearly the zinger you thought it was. As it turns out, eating out is insanely expensive. Cook most of your food and you can save a TON of money. The fact that this simple idea is so hard for people to pull out of the avocado toast comment continues to astound me.

And you're right - you can certainly scam the system for 6 months of "more truck". That's exactly the kind of monetary responsibility that got us into this situation in the first place. Thank you for showing everyone a perfect example, I suppose.

> I promise you with all my heart

You have such a deep misanthropic view that it's prevented you from seeing anything outside of it. You're preaching a faith not practicing an understanding of the world.

> Nobody is buying a gigantic vehicle

There are tons of contractors, laborers, small business and property owners who need the space or the utility of the vehicle. The reason these vehicles sell well is because they come in _tons_ of configurations.

> because it has seats that are easy to clean

No, that's why the manufacturer puts them in there, it helps them sell more vehicles by expanding their options.

> People are bad with money

Just.. like.. universally? Then how do you explain the number of billionaires and millionaires in this country? Let me guess.. from your heart it's 110% graft and corruption and 0% skill and sense and building wealth?

> I talk to my car selling friends,

Who has "car selling friends?" Your access to anecdotal information may not be helping you.

> It’s one of the strongest social signals people purchase.

We know this.. how?

> According to Edwards’ data, 75 percent of truck owners use their truck for towing one time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of truck owners go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35 percent of truck owners use their truck for hauling—putting something in the bed, its ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less.

> So what do people actually like about trucks? According to Edwards, the answer is counterintuitive. Truck drivers use their trucks very much like other car owners: for commuting to and from work, presumably alone. The thing that most distinguishes truck owners from those of other vehicles is their sheer love of driving. “The highest indexed use among truck owners is pleasure driving,” says Edwards. Truck drivers use their vehicles this way fully twice as often as the industry average. “This is the freedom that trucks offer,” says Edwards.

https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-siz...

The F-series is the best selling car family in the US. Some of them are using it for its intended purpose sure, the majority are just using it as parent said, a luxobarge.

> the majority are just using it as parent said, a luxobarge

25% use it for towing.

30% use it off road.

65% use it for hauling.

Obviously there's overlap but how many people do none of those three?

It's less than 35% which is not a majority.

100% because they want to and it's their choice.

Can't believe we sit here and judge people for choosing to drive a truck or not.

one time a year or less was the suffix for each of these, many more people fall into the once a month or so category. The economical thing to do is buy a civic and rent a truck the one time a year you use it for truck things.

How many people driving a civic never have someone in the back seat?

If your argument is that most Americans should be on public transit and save the average $500,000 they spend during their lives on private vehicles then I completely agree.

If you're saying "a less bad thing is still bad!" then your comment reads more like the "We should improve society somewhat. / Yet you participate in society. Curious! I am very intelligent." meme.

The argument seems to ve that trucks are bad because people don't use them to 100% capacity all the time.

People generally buy vehicles for to fit all of their needs not 95% of them. My back seat and trunk are almost always empty and my passenger seat is mostly empty.

>The F-series is the best selling car family in the US. Some of them are using it for its intended purpose sure, the majority are just using it as parent said, a luxobarge.

A F550 box truck and a crew cab shortbed F150 are both F-series as well as everything in between.

If not the best selling it had better be damn close with all the different vehicles that exist under that one nameplate.

The F-150 alone has been Americas best selling vehicle for 47 years straight until getting dethroned by the RAV4 in 2024 (unless you add any of the other F-series trucks). It appears to be back on top in 2025.

>You have such a deep misanthropic view

For being certain about something based on industry data?

>There are tons of contractors, laborers, small business and property owners who need the space or the utility of the vehicle.

And if that was the majority of these purchasers, this would be a reasonable response, but the extreme majority of truck owners use their truck for its intended purpose ONCE A YEAR. Bro just rent it from frickin' Home Depot and drive a Camry.

>No, that's why the manufacturer puts them in there

Ah, and of course the cheaper cars are purposely given seats which aren't cleanable? Or is it still correct that in the context of our conversation, it's nothing special and completely unrelated to how most people use their car? It's not within a million miles of a decision point.

>Just.. like.. universally?

Yes. You got it. I literally meant that every single person on the planet, rich, poor, and everything in between, is bad with money. I certainly wasn't making a hyperbolic point to bring an idea to the forefront - incredible detective work.

>Who has "car selling friends?"

I buy a lot of cars, and eventually made friends with the people I keep buying them from. We hang out sometimes. Do you just... not make friends with anyone?

>We know this.. how?

Who knows? My friends actually sit around talking about the specs on their refrigerators and the color options. They tinker in the garage on the cooling coils for hours a day. You should see how smooth the drawers in mine are.

> I promise you with all my heart, those luxobarges are not being purchased because they’re practical in any way, shape, or form. It’s 110% virtue signaling.

not sure virtue signalling is best description here. I think "conspicuous consumption" is far better description of the process

Indeed, in a sense it might even be better referred to as "vice signalling".

You're absolutely correct, thank you.

>Brother, people are scraping by right now

Yes some are, but not everyone with a big truck. I'm in truck country and most people can afford their big trucks no problem at all. It's not virtue signaling, they are do-everything cars. Nothing else beats them.

You can go to a off-road work site during the day, and take it downtown for dinner after. Lots of people are making good money and can easily afford them.

On the out of touch point, I will just note that every time we drive to West Virginia or Pennsylvania you can see when you leave the rich exurbs because it goes from $80k vanity trucks to fuel and maintenance efficient sedans, old Toyotas and vans, and the heavy trucks guys like welders use. There is zero question that they’re using those trucks from the wear patterns, whereas the luxury trucks in the areas where the average house is a million plus are spotless.

It’s not “virtue signaling”, it’s lifestyle messaging like wearing cowboy boots or walking around with DJ headphones as if you’re going to drop a set after the morning standup.

Those aren't the people I'm talking about in my post and they aren't the primary buyers of the vehicles I'm describing.

Maybe you are out of touch. I bet even many people here think it's mainly virtue signaling.

I mean… do any of the commercial services in US use pickup trucks? It seems to all be vans? Why not to get a van then as a contractor?

I see commercial lawn services driving in pickups a lot. It's a job that benefits from the open bed.

I tend to see them with either flatbed, trailer, or both. Occasionally box van plus trailer. Not usually a pickup and certainly not a luxury one.

I don't understand why flatbeds aren't more popular here. (Well if we assume that pickups aren't actually for utility then I guess it makes sense.)

You still need to tow.

You need body on frame, not the van unibody junk.

Most commercial services near me use trucks with or without a trailer. Painters tend to use vans, and some electricians. Everyone else has a truck with a logo on it. You can't tow well with a van, so it has to be a company that never tows.

Granted probably most people on here are CA or SV adjacent, which has a fairly idiosyncratic relationship with its service industries and stricter emissions regs.

Here (southeast US), lawn services use pickups, often also with a trailer. Most other services (plumbing, electrical, HVAC) use vans. Less sure about contractors, I interact with them less.

But I think the Venn diagram of "people who can afford these new trucks" and "people who live in their truck" is two completely separate circles.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com