SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Auto manufacturers today are scratching their heads, trying to figure out why the millennial generation has little-to-no interest in owning a car. What car makers are failing to see is that this generation's interests and priorities have been redefined in the last two decades, pushing cars to the side while must-have personal technology products take up the fast lane.
It's no secret the percentage of new vehicles sold to 18- to 34-year-olds has significantly dropped over the past few years. Many argue this is the result of a weak economy, that the idea of making a large car investment and getting into more debt on top of college loans is too daunting for them. But that's not the "driving" factor, especially considering that owning a smartphone or other mobile device, with its monthly fees of network access, data plan, insurance, and app services, is almost comparable to the monthly payments required when leasing a Honda Civic.
...
With recent studies showing a huge decline in auto sales among the millennial marketplace, it's no wonder auto manufacturers are in a mild state of panic, realizing they're missing out on a generation that wields $200 billion in purchasing power. Numbers don't lie, and over the last few years statistics have shown a significant drop in young people who own cars, as well as those with driver's licenses—and that decline continues among the youngest millennials, meaning this is not a trend that's going away anytime soon. From 2007 to 2011, the number of cars purchased by people aged 18 to 34, fell almost 30%, and according to a study from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, only 44% of teens obtain a driver's license within the first year of becoming eligible and just half, 54% are licensed before turning 18. This is a major break with the past, considering how most teens of the two previous generations would race to the DMV for their license or permit on the day of their 16th birthday.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Wednesday September 14 2016, @03:57AM
Somehow I think if you have a 40 hour/wk job paying uber to take you to and fro is not going to be cost effective. Ok, if you live in NYC it might be. I live in San Diego, my cost of both owning and maintaining a car is going to be, um (pull a number out of my ass) half what an uber driver will cost.
Think about it. I own a car, need to buy gas for it, need to maintain it. I hire an uber driver. They own a car, need to buy gas, maintain it, plus make money. Which do you think will pencil out in the end?
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by j-beda on Wednesday September 14 2016, @04:15AM
Think about it. I own a car, need to buy gas for it, need to maintain it. I hire an uber driver. They own a car, need to buy gas, maintain it, plus make money. Which do you think will pencil out in the end?
It all depends on how much you drive: One trip per week and it is a lot cheaper to pay the driver and not have to pay the overhead of owning a car that only gets used a few times per month. One hundred trips per week and it is a lot cheaper to not be paying for the driver's wage. Where the cross over point between one and one hundred is left to the reader as an exercise.
Yes, hiring a driver means you need to pay for the car costs plus the driver profit, but you only pay for a fraction of the total car costs. Owning a car means you do not have that "driver cost" expense, but then you pay for all of the car costs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @10:54AM
Plus you can still play Pokemon Go reasonably safely while someone else drives ;).
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Wednesday September 14 2016, @09:40AM
I live in San Diego
Of all the places I've visited, San Diego is probably the one that is most hostile to people who don't drive. On one trip, we stayed in a hotel that's just across the road from a strip mall. One of my colleagues checked in and explained to the clerk that he didn't have a car, so didn't need valet parking, but did need to pick up a local SIM card so wanted to know the way to the nearest phone shop. The clerk gave him driving directions in spite of having been told 30 seconds earlier that he didn't have a car. The nearest bus stop to the hotel was only accessible by car. Wonderful climate, but definitely a city completely built around the idea of the automobile.
Think about it. I own a car, need to buy gas for it, need to maintain it. I hire an uber driver. They own a car, need to buy gas, maintain it, plus make money. Which do you think will pencil out in the end?
Between depreciation, road tax, servicing, and insurance, the cost of owning a car here is at least £100/month even if you never drive it. On top of that, if you do drive it then fuel costs money too. The fixed costs are sufficiently high that it's a lot cheaper to rent a car (even a car with a driver) if you're not using it that much.
When I bought my first house, places just outside of town that would have required me to buy a car were a lot cheaper. I considered them a bit, but between the appreciation on property vs depreciation on the car, over a 10-year period it didn't make financial sense. The difference in mortgage payments would have been similar to the cost of operating a car, but the money paid to the mortgage was on an appreciating asset. Oh, and I could go out in the evenings and still be able to walk home a little bit drunk, whereas driving home equally drunk would have been a very bad idea.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by Hawkwind on Wednesday September 14 2016, @05:46PM
I've ran in to weird car-oriented behavior in San Diego also BUT the city has a good transit system once you get dialed in to it. It's easy to get to all the major parks, Tiajuana, and the beaches. Walking around downtown is easy. Walking/bicycling mission beach is easy.
In my experience, though, the hotels have really wanted to rent us cars.
(Score: 2) by AndyTheAbsurd on Wednesday September 14 2016, @11:22AM
Riding as a single passenger with Uber, you're probably right (I haven't done the math, though). However, Uber also offers Uber Pool, where one driver picks up multiple passengers going to the same area; and this is a lot cheaper. (Lyft offers a similar service called Lyft Line.) Turns out that even the president of the LA Taxicab commission [buzzfeed.com] is using Uber Pool to get to work.
Please note my username before responding. You may have been trolled.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday September 14 2016, @02:01PM
In NYC the absolute best transportation option is a foldable bike you can pop into a bag and take into work with you. There are lots of protected bike lanes now, enough people commute by bike to give you safety in numbers, and the foldable option means you don't have to worry about the availability/placement of bike racks or damage to or theft of your bike.
The second best option is the bikeshare program, $130/yr w/ unlimited free 45-minute rides (that's enough to get you to work in most cases). The stations aren't everywhere yet, but if you're in a covered area it's damn convenient.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Wednesday September 14 2016, @02:12PM
Think about it. I own a car, need to buy gas for it, need to maintain it. I hire an uber driver. They own a car, need to buy gas, maintain it, plus make money. Which do you think will pencil out in the end?
It depends on which of you is under 25. After the twenty-fifth birthday, I'm told car insurance rates drop precipitously. So your Uber driver makes money on being in a lower insurance risk bracket.