A Socio economic discussion about boomers.

SkyChaser said:
So much of the pain of modern living is driven by people living above their paygrade. Have certain aspects of the economy changed, and not for the better? Yes, of course. But I could write a book on how much wasted money exists in the modern Millennial lifestyle.
Click to expand...

I am not disagreeing that people should live within their means, I am pointing out that for many that is not an option.

2-Bit Speed said:
Don't have a fancy line graph, but here are the numbers for minimum wage since 1974. From $2.00 to over seven.
Click to expand...
$2 in May 1974 is equal to $12.66 today when adjusted for inflation (citation: https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm)
 
MarkH said:
I am not disagreeing that people should live within their means, I am pointing out that for many that is not an option.
Click to expand...

And I'm pointing out that the only reason that they "can't" is because they are choosing a certain type of lifestyle that has never been considered to be accessible to middle-class Americans at any point in history.

eman1200 said:
get a job, woman!

I kid I kid
Click to expand...

:biggrin: Believe me, I'm working on getting a part time job, but due to other life ...stuff, it hasn't happened yet. The wonderful part about being a one-income household, though, is that all that part-time cash can go straight to whatever we're saving up for.
 
wilkersk said:
Knowing then what I know now, I'd have bought stock in Apple and Microsoft. I'd be a bazillionaire. I don't see how that's got anything to do with so-called "baby boomers" stealing your slice of the pie.
Click to expand...
Don't strawman my position. I merely challenged your attempted flex about high interest rates in the past, in a conversation about present day buyers complaining about 7% rates. I retorted that 1992's rates were not the burden you imply they were, compared to today. That was my actual position and point.

Bringing up the interest rate of yesteryear is a common form of bad faith argument, because it purposely buries the lead, which is of course: The median income to median home price ratio of that time, compared to today's.
 
I'll add that as a Xennial, I have been very fortunate to have chosen an occupation (Mfg Accounting) that was in demand and hasn't suffered through economic downturns that hit many people around the time I graduated from college (2006). Within 2 years of my graduation, the Xennial/Millennial set walked right into the 2008 collapse, so for many there were NO jobs to be had. Even though housing prices fell, most had little/no income to be able to take advantage of the situation to generate wealth in a responsible way. Then, the older generations started yapping about "pulling up by your bootstraps" and "not living in your parents' house at 24 yrs old" despite having had a very healthy run through the 90's to build wealth and experience, while making even the most menial of jobs require a 4-yr degree. Gen X/Millennials didn't do that, Boomers did. Raising the barriers to entry and offshoring hundreds of thousands jobs seems like a initiation joke Boomers were playing on successive generations. Even people who had degrees in Marketing, Aviation, or Engineering were having difficulty finding work because everyone got laid off in the financial collapse and no one was spending R&D dollars or had their advertising budgets stripped away.

I was able to attend college before costs went absolutely crazy, and graduated with very little student loan debt. Since I was able to have a good job with increasing pay (over 50% increase in my first 3 years), I qualified for a home that had been foreclosed on in 2009. So, I got the benefit of reasonable housing (although I did buy a home that needed a good bit of TLC) at a lower interest rate. I was also able to buy a new truck for $30K which was completely loaded out. It wasn't the best financial decision, but I kept it for 12 years and got half my money back out of it when I sold it.

Now, fast-forward to the subject at hand: Boomers aren't going to let go of their wealth willingly. They have enjoyed the skyrocketing housing/asset values in the homes they have been in for 20+ years, so when it comes time to move to a senior care facility, they want top-dollar (as anyone would). That means that current generations who are looking to get into a house (or move to something a bit nicer/bigger) are not likely to come at a discount over current prices. Just like that old guy who won't take less than $50K for a runout C152, the deals to be had will be rare. So assets are going to cost a lot more (inflation adjusted) and with current interest rates, will take a higher proportion of wages to purchase. Consumerism and poor financial discipline certainly seems to take its toll on younger generations, but the American economy survives pretty much on that Consumerism these days, so if those spending habits dried up overnight, the Boomer's 401K/pensions would become worthless. Can't yell at the young kids for participating in the very economy that was created for them.
 
Last edited:
hindsight2020 said:
Don't strawman my position. I merely challenged your attempted flex about high interest rates in the past, in a conversation about present day buyers complaining about 7% rates. I retorted that 1992's rates were not the burden you imply they were, compared to today. That was my actual position and point.

Bringing up the interest rate of yesteryear is a common form of bad faith argument, because it purposely buries the lead, which is of course: The median income to median home price ratio of that time, compared to today's.
Click to expand...

And if I had been arguing about the affordability of owning your own home in 1982 vs today, you would have a valid point. I wasn't.

We didn't have to buy a house back then. But, thats what we were taught to do. In terms of dollars in your pocket, and having money to buy groceries, buying a home in 1982 was expensive, no matter what ratio you wanna look at 40 years after the fact.
 
MarkH said:
I am not disagreeing that people should live within their means, I am pointing out that for many that is not an option.
Click to expand...
I’m going to go out on a limb here. I think many people choose for it not to be optional. FrEx, my daughter is a school teacher in Austin, so is her spouse. Both decided to buy their first house in the spring of 2022.

They both decided there was only three zip codes they would live, the house had to be from a particular flipper, and the house had to be originally built in the year they were born. They got exactly what they wanted with a zero down mortgage on a $418K selling price.

There were plenty of comparable new construction single family options at almost half the price in the zip code they were living in AND was closer to the schools each teach at. They also decided they both needed to start an M.Ed program, and that M.Ed had to be from a certain brand.

How two relatively new public school teachers are able to pay nearly $3900/mo on a mortgage is beyond me, but knowing their gross incomes (it’s public data) and existing debts, I can only assume they took student loans for the M.Eds and are using that to help pay their monthly bills, because both have publicly stated they do not have time for additional jobs, even in the summer.

I feel for them, their lifestyle is going to literally bankrupt them.
 
Bill said:
My Dad was 42 before he thought he was well off enough to splurge on a car that had power windows, A/C, and holy cow, an FM radio (all cars before that had AM radios). We pleaded with him order the AM/FM/cassette stereo on that car, but he said nope, too much money. And besides, he said, who pays for music when it's free on the radio?

That's the mindset of an early boomer, very conservative with what they spent.
Click to expand...

I'm 40 this year: Never had a car payment. Never spent more than $3500 on a car. Largest repair I've ever paid for was about $1200 after I fried a BCM by doing something stupid to it. Second largest repairs are buying sets of tires.

I did borrow my Dad's 1998 Lumina about 14 months, after my 2002 Impala overheated & locked up at 225K miles. That Lumina is rusted out POS that he still has and drives today. The AC still works in it too.

There are kids in crazy debts that pay way more in interest/tax/title/licensee/insurance than that. Heck some of these car payments make airplane ownership look reasonable these days.
 
Last edited:
TCABM said:
I’m going to go out on a limb here. I think many people choose for it not to be optional. FrEx, my daughter is a school teacher in Austin, so is her spouse. Both decided to buy their first house in the spring of 2022.

They both decided there was only three zip codes they would live, the house had to be from a particular flipper, and the house had to be originally built in the year they were born. They got exactly what they wanted with a zero down mortgage on a $418K selling price.

There were plenty of comparable new construction single family options at almost half the price in the zip code they were living in AND was closer to the schools each teach at. They also decided they both needed to start an M.Ed program, and that M.Ed had to be from a certain brand.

How two relatively new public school teachers are able to pay nearly $3900/mo on a mortgage is beyond me, but knowing their gross incomes (it’s public data) and existing debts, I can only assume they took student loans for the M.Eds and are using that to help pay their monthly bills, because both have publicly stated they do not have time for additional jobs, even in the summer.

I feel for them, their lifestyle is going to literally bankrupt them.
Click to expand...
Wow, as a parent that had to be hard to watch.
 
Half Fast said:
When I was hiring engineers for Lockheed, I often had a large stack of resumes and a short period of time to wade through them. ... I also toss the ones with GPAs < 3.0. Then I take the remaining ones and screen for relevant job experience, certifications, etc. Then with the remaining small stack I start reading in detail, looking for sweeteners like leadership experience, business training....

That's the reality. Maybe I missed an occasional diamond in the rough, but I hired a lot of great people who have been successful in the company.
Click to expand...
Interesting, the difference between what's looked for at large vs. small companies. I don't do hiring, but I'm often asked to look at the resumes of prospective engineering hires. Credentialism makes it hard to find that diamond in the rough. Some of the best engineers I've ever worked with had no degree at all.

When I look at resumes I ignore grades, yeah, the high GPA means smart and dedicated, but a lower GPA is often the really creative engineer who had fun in college. "Leadership experience" or business training, bah, but the kit who built race cars or model planes while in high school or college (and thought enough of it to include it on his resume) is more likely to be able to design a machine that actually works vs. a high GPA grad who doesn't know how to select a bolt and nut but can analyze it using FEA.

Still, I understand that a big company like Lockheed needs the smart diligent team player who will behave well because he has management aspirations (and won't make a mistake analyzing the wing root fitting), but the small companies I've spent most of my career at need need the adaptable hands on types who are as comfortable in the shop joking with the mechanics while assembling the machine they designed as they are sitting in front of a tube designing it.

But it also explains why I didn't get along at Sikorsky and didn't last long when I briefly ended up there.


But back to the original subject, in many ways that minimum wage burger flipper is wealthier than a Rockefeller 100 years ago because he has access to things that were unavailable at any price back then.
 
Dana said:
When I look at resumes I ignore grades, yeah, the high GPA means smart and dedicated, but a lower GPA is often the really creative engineer who had fun in college.
Click to expand...
"or" had a job. It was awfully tough to give engineering school the time it demanded while also working a job to offset a lot of the costs posted elsewhere in this thread. Okay I spent it on a Skywagon, but you get the point.

But yes in general I've found the creative engineers have lower GPA's and are more able to think outside the box. High GPA engineers 'in general' are very good rule followers and test takers, but not necessarily the best engineers.
 
TCABM said:
I’m going to go out on a limb here. I think many people choose for it not to be optional. FrEx, my daughter is a school teacher in Austin, so is her spouse. Both decided to buy their first house in the spring of 2022.

They both decided there was only three zip codes they would live, the house had to be from a particular flipper, and the house had to be originally built in the year they were born. They got exactly what they wanted with a zero down mortgage on a $418K selling price.

There were plenty of comparable new construction single family options at almost half the price in the zip code they were living in AND was closer to the schools each teach at. They also decided they both needed to start an M.Ed program, and that M.Ed had to be from a certain brand.

How two relatively new public school teachers are able to pay nearly $3900/mo on a mortgage is beyond me, but knowing their gross incomes (it’s public data) and existing debts, I can only assume they took student loans for the M.Eds and are using that to help pay their monthly bills, because both have publicly stated they do not have time for additional jobs, even in the summer.

I feel for them, their lifestyle is going to literally bankrupt them.
Click to expand...
One of the troubling things I've seen repeatedly in my life within my own family/friend circles is the bad financial decision makers living in a sort of financial denialism.
The more in the financial hole they are, the less willing they are to sit down and add up the totals that they owe. A sort of financially perverse, reality avoidance technique. Buying expensive things lets them escape to la-la land.
It's almost as if as long as they can cling to those handful of things that they think separate them from the meager living they're ultimately destined for, the safer they are. It's depressing to watch because it never works out well.
Unfortunately I see this the most with people my age (millennials). I can't tell you how many people I know who outwardly have nice toys, but when push comes to shove they don't have two nickels to rub together unless it comes from financing.

IDK if people have always lived like this (I don't think so, because credit was not always this available). But it's definitely a disaster for this generation.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Don't strawman my position. I merely challenged your attempted flex about high interest rates in the past, in a conversation about present day buyers complaining about 7% rates. I retorted that 1992's rates were not the burden you imply they were, compared to today. That was my actual position and point.

Bringing up the interest rate of yesteryear is a common form of bad faith argument, because it purposely buries the lead, which is of course: The median income to median home price ratio of that time, compared to today's.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. I know that the 7% rates is one of the factors in my wife and I not building last summer and moving.
I also know a half dozen or more couples who decided against purchasing because 7% was too high of an interest payment.

Depending on which ratio you want to consider, price to gross income, or mortgage payment to income; the current situation screws those who not already in the game and did not get in a couple decades ago.

Tim
 
Mtns2Skies said:
But yes in general I've found the creative engineers have lower GPA's and are more able to think outside the box. High GPA engineers 'in general' are very good rule followers and test takers, but not necessarily the best engineers.
Click to expand...

My experience has been the exact opposite with new grads. The people who didn't do as well in college, and maybe didn't attend upper ranked schools, as new hires didn't perform as well initially in challenging assignments. They had to be in simpler roles and brought up to speed a bit more slowly.

After a few years, differences seen in new-hires tended to blur.

One of the reasons I favored high GPAs when interviewing new grads is it gave me some indication of versatility. A person with a high overall GPA has done well in all of his classes, performing well with a variety of teachers, subjects, classmates / lab partners / project teams, etc., over a period of several years. I needed engineers that I could move to wherever they were needed, so I wanted to know that they could get along with different bosses and coworkers and succeed in a variety of assignments.
 
Dana said:
....but the small companies I've spent most of my career at need need the adaptable hands on types who are as comfortable in the shop joking with the mechanics while assembling the machine they designed as they are sitting in front of a tube designing it.
Click to expand...


I can't tell you the number of times we bought items from companies like that, then had to re-design them or send LM engineers in to bail them out. Sure, they could make something work in the shop, but they couldn't analyze it well enough to ensure that it worked over temperature or at altitude or under high g's or in an electromagnetic environment, etc., etc. And the small shops didn't have specialists in material science or manufacturing or reliability or electronic components, etc., etc., so we'd have to step in and provide missing expertise. I have a list of horror stories.
 
TCABM said:
I’m going to go out on a limb here. I think many people choose for it not to be optional.
Click to expand...

This is true and I've seen it play out time after time after time.

But I won't say it's confined to any particular generation. I think I've seen my fellow boomers make just as many dumb mistakes this way as I have millenials or GenXers.

Watching people drown themselves in debt, I've come to the conclusion that everything happens for a reason. Sometimes the reason is that they're idiots and make stupid decisions.
 
DavidWhite said:
Actually, yes. There is only so much wealth that gets distributed. The myth of infinite economic growth is more ridiculous than santa claus or the tooth fairy.
Click to expand...
That doesn't even stand up to the most cursory examination. If that were the case, expanding population alone would have made everyone on Earth destitute.

What I have the biggest issue with is the concept of wealth "being distributed". It's not distributed. It's created and earned.

ArrowFlyer86 said:
One of the troubling things I've seen repeatedly in my life within my own family/friend circles is the bad financial decision makers living in a sort of financial denialism.
The more in the financial hole they are, the less willing they are to sit down and add up the totals that they owe. A sort of financially perverse, reality avoidance technique.
Click to expand...
I watch our kids and see both ends of the spectrum. One is debt free after several years of very disciplined fiscal behavior, and has decided they're not happy with paying the "outrageous" mortgage rates lenders are getting now, so instead of moving up to their next house now they'll just save up for a few years and pay cash unless the rates drop under 5% again.

One is earning low six figures and can't pay their rent. They're "still trying to figure out" their spending so they can work up a budget -- and won't accept or seek any help with that. Come on. I'm an old fart and it took me half a day to analyze every spend for the past year and figure out exactly where the money goes, and where it's going. It doesn't require any specialized knowledge, and it's easier now than it ever has been. If you don't know where you're spending your money, it's because you either don't care or just don't want to know.

Half Fast said:
Watching people drown themselves in debt, I've come to the conclusion that everything happens for a reason. Sometimes the reason is that they're idiots and make stupid decisions.
Click to expand...
Judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment. :)
 
DaleB said:
Those two things have combined to drive prices up significantly. Low supply caused by reduced production and growing population, high demand caused by low interest rates.
Click to expand...
More than that. Here in the frozen north we get many well-heeled immigrants from the rapidly-industrializing Asian countries. They have the money to buy houses. Lots of houses. Prices shoot up and the local young people get squeezed out of the market.
DaleB said:
The mortgage on our first house (1985-ish) was 13.5%, which was a bargain at the time.
Click to expand...
In 1980 we paid 15% on our $60K first house. A week after we signed the agreement to purchase we were offered $70K for it, but where would we have gone? All the affordable stuff was sold. Rates went to 22% after we bought, and many who took out one-year mortgages at 12% on the wishful thinking that the rates couldn't go any higher lost their places.
Half Fast said:
One interesting consideration is that millennials are much more likely to hold a college degree than boomers. But what fields did they study? How many of those majored in Mayan architecture or 14th century poetry? I really don't know, but some studies have shown that millennials took longer to land good jobs than boomers did. This might be indicative of a difference in job availability, and it might indicate a difference in job skills.
Click to expand...
Yup. Too many students sucked in by college advertising instead of examining the job market to see where the action is. So we have all sorts of social justice degrees, and no plumbers or electricians. Or aircraft mechanics.
Dana said:
Too many kids were sold the "you gotta go to college and get a professional job or you're a failure"... when plumbers are making over $100 per hour. Oh yeah, and we're desperate for good experienced machinists and toolmakers, too.
Click to expand...
That there. When plumbers get scarce, they get expensive. I think I missed the coming aircraft mechanic shortage and the wages that will go with that.

Buyers don't look at the house price. They look at the monthly payment, and buy as much house as they can afford to make those payments on. So they're in trouble instantly when the cheap money inevitably disappears.
 
Morgan3820 said:
Wow, as a parent that had to be hard to watch.
Click to expand...

We tended to have very open conversations with both our now adult children (they’re 15 months apart) regarding money management. We’ve shared with them how to budget, how to plan for the future, what our finances looked like when we were their ages and today and what our journey has been to get through life.

Even when they had youth accounts (checking/savings debit card only) we stayed out of their checkbooks/statements and set the expectations that we don’t do loans.

Each had 529s to pay for two-thirds of the average in-state tuition for four years of tuition, books, fees, and reasonable living expenses. They had to make up the remaining third through scholarships, loans, or jobs. We agreed we would also match, dollar for dollar, any scholarship money either received.

One lost their scholarship at the end of the freshman year, switched majors with very little credit carry-over at the end of the sophomore year, and graduated after four years plus summers and another fall semester.

The other started college with a $500 scholarship that turned into a full tuition, books, and fees scholarship starting junior year. That one worked two of three summers, and graduated on time.

Both were fully employed (one teacher, one Army officer) within 60 days of graduating. The teacher’s salary was higher than the soldiers for their first three years working.

One reports to be 100% debt free, maintains 3 months gross salary as an emergency fund, and has 15% of gross income going to retirement investments. The other has a mortgage, student loans, and credit card debt.

One of the two “works to have life experiences” the other works because it’s a passion and takes pride in neither being a burden nor a debtor. We’re proud of both of them and respect the choices each has made in their life.

Both understand our financial goal is to enable the things we want to do while making sure the last check bounces as it’s being written to the funeral home. We hold an annual family business meeting where we review what happens in the event we should pass away unexpectedly. It’s simple right now, but is subject to change in the future for any number of reasons. Both are aware things will get more complex if/when grandkids come into the picture and why that is.
 
Half Fast said:
One of the reasons I favored high GPAs when interviewing new grads is it gave me some indication of versatility. A person with a high overall GPA has done well in all of his classes, performing well with a variety of teachers, subjects, classmates / lab partners / project teams, etc., over a period of several years. I needed engineers that I could move to wherever they were needed, so I wanted to know that they could get along with different bosses and coworkers and succeed in a variety of assignments.
Click to expand...
That's interesting. My experience in finance (buy side) has been fairly opposite.

When you pick up someone of the traditional pedigree for our industry (ivy league undergrad or equivalent, stellar GPA, 2+ years investment banking experience, may or may not have an MBA following their IB stint) you get someone who I have found is not always adaptable or versatile. Lots of these guys (and they're almost all men) are used to having every stepping stone on the pathway to success clearly illuminated; not a single ambiguous step along the way. They've known since high school if they follow the well-worn straight-and-narrow path taking honors/AP classes, studying incessantly for the SAT and then repeating during college -- eventually they'll have opportunities at cool places. So that's exactly what you end up with, a bunch of people who do exactly that while trotting down a riskless path. The resumes write themselves.

The problem is these guys are good at repeating, not inventing. They're good at following instructions, not taking risks to do something a new way. They want to be thought of as leaders without providing real leadership. They check boxes instead of making an impact.

The one thing they universally share in common is they all think they're in the top 10% of performers because school taught them to think that way :p (and thus expect to be comped as such, which leads to massive turnover in our industry)
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
The problem is these guys are good at repeating, not inventing. They're good at following instructions, not taking risks to do something a new way.
Click to expand...


Might be a difference between finance and engineering curricula.

The engineering schools, at least the ones we hired from, emphasized design. Assign a requirement and have the student create a solution. In some classes that extends to building and demonstrating hardware. One item always discussed in an interview was the senior design project.
 
As a generation X'er its interesting to say the least watching fellow X'ers who didn't work as hard, invest as much or as early now falling into big inheritances from their boomer parents. While we end up working closer to 67 I know of several people still paying off houses, cars every 3 years, vacations - in debt - no savings. But in 2 years they will have a higher net worth than us and retire early (argghh!). Its been like this forever. But it seems the recent boomers are passing on a lot more wealth than any other generation both in number of families passing along significant wealth and level of wealth being passed on. Its like a weird equalizer for the X'ers in some regards.
 
Sinistar said:
As a generation X'er its interesting to say the least watching fellow X'ers who didn't work as hard, invest as much or as early now falling into big inheritances from their boomer parents. While we end up working closer to 67 I know of several people still paying off houses, cars every 3 years, vacations - in debt - no savings. But in 2 years they will have a higher net worth than us and retire early (argghh!). Its been like this forever. But it seems the recent boomers are passing on a lot more wealth than any other generation both in number of families passing along significant wealth and level of wealth being passed on. Its like a weird equalizer for the X'ers in some regards.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the stats show the opposite. Boomers have one of the lowest savings rates in memory. As a group, their wealth is pretty much tied to the homes they live in, and not much else. At least, that is what my boomer parents tell me. I have read a few articles backing it up, but never really researched it.

Tim
 
DavidWhite said:
In a world of finite resources, assuming anything is “infinite” is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Wealth is created by applying ideas to resources.

For practical purposes, ideas are infinite and many resources for their implementations are renewable or reusable. The world is nowhere near the end of the wealth that can be created.
 
DavidWhite said:
In a world of finite resources, assuming anything is “infinite” is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

The finite nature of this world must be why we're still murdering each with rocks, eating bugs, and not communicating at lightspeed across continents using devices our ancestors would call magic.
 
Half Fast said:
Wealth is created by applying ideas to resources.

For practical purposes, ideas are infinite and many resources for their implementations are renewable or reusable. The world is nowhere near the end of the wealth that can be created.
Click to expand...

That’s a good way to look at it, and one I have not considered.
 
DavidWhite said:
So technological development = infinity?
Click to expand...

Have you ever noticed that unworked iron is less valuable than worked iron? I have a friend that buys unworked steel and works it. It is the work to refine raw materials into useful goods that imparts value. To quote an old movie, "No one buying a painting asks how much was the paint or how much was the canvas."

Considering that the western world now lives with luxury beyond the imaginings of even 19th century people should demonstrate the value of ingenuity and human effort beyond the value of the raw materials.
 
MarkH said:
This is exactly the challenge millennials face that older generations don't seem to understand.

In the 70s/80s/90s, my dad could buy a basic truck. Now, a basic work truck is built to compete with a Cadillac. A single cab full size truck will often sell for $60k,
Click to expand...

IMG_6604.jpeg

From Ford web site, 2-door basic pickup starts at $33.8k. Do dealers stock them? Nope, because people want fancy trucks. So much so that average Joes are willing to sign up for 72 and 84 month loans. Because, hey, I *deserve* to have a nice truck. That’s fricken nuts!

Find a dealer that will let you order what you want. We bought a Jeep Wrangler last year, I wanted a basic 2-door stick shift bottom of the line model because it’s a fricken Jeep, not a luxury car. All the dealers stock are 4-door fancy pants mall crawlers that are $50k and up. So I ordered the base model, no sweat.
 
Bill said:
From Ford web site, 2-door basic pickup starts at $33.8k. Do dealers stock them? Nope, because people want fancy trucks. So much so that average Joes are willing to sign up for 72 and 84 month loans. Because, hey, I *deserve* to have a nice truck. That’s fricken nuts!
Click to expand...

Part of the reason the stripped vehicles aren’t available on car lots is the same reason you can’t get home builders to build small/conservative homes - the profit margin is too small to make it worth their while. They’ll do it if asked, but that’s not what car manufacturers or home builders will provide if they’re left in charge. But in fairness, there are a ton of dumb people who buy the high end vehicles and houses who can’t really afford them and are part of the problem too.

I just ordered a zero option car this past summer. The sales guy said it was the only one he’s ever seen.
 
Bill said:
View attachment 123013

From Ford web site, 2-door basic pickup starts at $33.8k. Do dealers stock them? Nope, because people want fancy trucks. So much so that average Joes are willing to sign up for 72 and 84 month loans. Because, hey, I *deserve* to have a nice truck. That’s fricken nuts!

Find a dealer that will let you order what you want. We bought a Jeep Wrangler last year, I wanted a basic 2-door stick shift bottom of the line model because it’s a fricken Jeep, not a luxury car. All the dealers stock are 4-door fancy pants mall crawlers that are $50k and up. So I ordered the base model, no sweat.
Click to expand...
Fun point of reference for Ford trucks. I remember going with my father to look at new trucks in 1998, when the 1999s had just hit the lot. Sticker price for a new, loaded 1999 F-150 SuperCab Lariat was just over $22K. My father shook his head and said he'd never buy a truck for over $20K, despite having the means to do so. He found a used, loaded '98 Lariat that had 5K miles on it owned by the dealer for the past year and bought it for $18K, lol.

Fast forward 10 years when I bought my new, every option-loaded 2008 F-150 SuperCrew Lariat. Sticker price was $42K, but it being Feb of 2009 and the market had crashed with fuel being expensive, dealerships couldn't drop prices fast enough to move full-size trucks and SUVs. So I bought it for $30K out the door. Same truck today is a $65K+ vehicle. 90% the same truck as my 08 in terms of capability, comfort, and function, but somehow added $20K+ to the sticker over the course of 12 years.

My father bought a 2018 F-150 SuperCab XLT in 2019 and paid right around $35K. He had to search around quite a bit to find a SuperCab, and then even more to find one that wasn't loaded out driving the price well North of $40K. Ford (and other brands) make absurd amounts of profit off of trucks and SUVs once they changed their formula to build and market them as luxury vehicles. The Lariat used to be a fairly rare trim level that most didn't opt for (and didn't add much value anyway) back in the 80s and 90s. By the time the 00's came around, Lariat trims were most of the trucks sold. Now you can't blink without seeing a Lariat, or King Ranch/Platinum. Same goes for Denali-trim GMC trucks and SUVs.
 
Bill said:
View attachment 123013

From Ford web site, 2-door basic pickup starts at $33.8k. Do dealers stock them? Nope, because people want fancy trucks. So much so that average Joes are willing to sign up for 72 and 84 month loans. Because, hey, I *deserve* to have a nice truck. That’s fricken nuts!

Find a dealer that will let you order what you want. We bought a Jeep Wrangler last year, I wanted a basic 2-door stick shift bottom of the line model because it’s a fricken Jeep, not a luxury car. All the dealers stock are 4-door fancy pants mall crawlers that are $50k and up. So I ordered the base model, no sweat.
Click to expand...

In my specific case, I was looking for a 250/350 and I had 4 dealers refuse to order a basic single cab. I could spec it online, but dealers would not call me back.

I specifically was looking for a Ford or GM, Ram dealers were more willing to work with, but I wanted a gas engine and I am not a fan of the Hemi for heavy towing.
 
Not your locale, but a quick look at my closest Ford dealer shows a new white 250 2 door 8ft bed, 6.8 engine, 4wd, $50.5k. They’re out there, find a dealer that will work with you.
 
Bill said:
Not your locale, but a quick look at my closest Ford dealer shows a new white 250 2 door 8ft bed, 6.8 engine, 4wd, $50.5k. They’re out there, find a dealer that will work with you.
Click to expand...
That proves my point - it's 50k+.

My first house was 27k and I bought it in 2015.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top