SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
AlterNet reports
When Republicans in Congress passed a big, fat tax break bill in December, they insisted it meant American workers would be singing "Happy Days Are Here Again" all the way to the bank. The payoff from the tax cut would be raises totaling $4,000 to $9,000, the President's Council of Economic Advisers assured workers. But something bad happened to workers on their way to the repository. They never got that money.
In fact, their real wages declined because of higher inflation. At the same time, the amount workers had to pay in interest on loans for cars and credit cards increased. And, to top it off, Republicans threatened to make workers pay for the tax break with cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. So now, workers across America are wondering, "Where's that raise?". It's nowhere to be found.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported this week that wages for production and nonsupervisory workers decreased by 0.1 percent from May 2017 to May 2018 when inflation is factored in. The compensation for all workers together, including supervisors, rose an underwhelming 0.1 percent from April 2018 to May 2018.
That's not what congressional Republicans promised workers. They said corporations, which got the biggest, fattest tax cuts of all, would use that extra money to increase wages. Some workers got one-time bonuses and an even smaller number received raises. But not many. The group Americans for Tax Fairness estimates it's 4.3 percent of all U.S. workers.
The New York Times story about this record breaker describes the phenomena this way: "Companies buy back their shares when they believe they have nothing better to do with their money than to return capital to shareholders." So despite promises from the GOP and the President's Council of Economic Advisers, corporations believed further enriching their own executives and shareholders was a much better way to use the money than increasing workers' wages--wages that have been stagnant for decades.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bobthecimmerian on Sunday June 24 2018, @04:45PM
Buying used cars is actually a luxury. If my 8 year old car needs a $5,000 repair, I can either take the money out of savings (I have it... barely) or junk it and buy a five year old car to replace it. If the neighbor kid buys a used car and it suddenly needs a $3,000 repair, most likely he can neither afford the repair or a replacement. If he has payments on it, he's doubly screwed because he has no vehicle and a payment. If the same lower income person buys a new car, the payments are higher but for at least three years all maintenance problems more complex than oil changes and maybe one set of brakes and tires are the dealer's cost and not the buyer's.
On top of that, there are safety concerns. As much as we enviro-hippies hate it, mass is a huge factor in collisions. If I roll over a large pickup truck, I'm most likely dead and so are the other occupants. But if we don't roll over, we're going to walk away without a scratch from collisions that will massacre the occupants of a smaller vehicle. Within the same weight class, differences in crash engineering are also enormous. There are a whole range of crashes that would cause serious damage to the occupants of a 2006 Chrysler minivan that will only shake up the occupants of a 2018 Chrysler minivan. So larger vehicle size and newer, safer crash protection are two valid reasons to buy more expensive vehicles. I have my family of six in a brand new Chrysler van, and I'd put us all in a Chevy Suburban or Ford Expedition if I could afford the difference.
But otherwise yes, your point stands. No reason to buy a Mustang when a Focus will do. No reason to buy a Tundra pickup if you can get the job done in a smaller Tacoma. And if you do have $10,000 set aside, rather than making a down payment on a new X, spend $5,000 on a used X and save the $5,000 for repairs - plus all of the money you save month to month without payments. If I didn't have kids, I would be in a used Civic, Focus, Corolla, etc... I could never live with myself if I lost a kid in a car crash, but if I die in a crash I won't be around to miss me.