View Single Post
Old 09-25-2018, 03:32 PM   #78
ermax
Senior Member
 
ermax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Drives: 2022 BRZ Limited Silver
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 2,533
Thanks: 883
Thanked 2,049 Times in 1,191 Posts
Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo View Post
1995
Median household income: 53,330
BMW M3: 37,950 - 71% of median income
Honda accord: 14,940 - 28%
Mazda Miata: 17,895 - 33%

2017
Median household income: 59,039
BMW M4: 65,400 - 111% of median income
Honda Accord: 22,455 - 38%
(Honda Civic: 18,740 - 32%)
Mazda Miata: 24,915 - 42%

The cars got 56%, 36%, and 27% more expensive.

Even when you consider that the Civic is now about equivalent in size as the Accord was then, it still costs 15% more to own the car.
Cars. Are. More. Expensive. Period.
I never said they were not more expensive. My point was you can't simply apply inflation to a car because their target audience can completely change. For example if you applied inflation to that 1995 Accord it would be 24700 and the MX5 would be 28700. I threw out the Accord and the Miata because their target hasn't changed that much. Like you said, the Accord has gotten much larger with the Civic sort of filling in behind it and yet still didn't keep up with inflation. The M3 is kind of a special case though.

Factoring in the household income is an eye opener though. It seems like food has been hit with inflation the most. I'm a runner and decided to start packing my own lunch and using my lunch break for a run and I'm saving $200-$250 per month doing this. So it's a win win. I remember when you could get lunch for $5, now I'm lucky to get lunch for $12. I'm no economist but printing money and keeping interest rates artificially low for so long seems like a recipe for disaster in the long run.
ermax is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ermax For This Useful Post:
Summerwolf (09-25-2018), Yoshoobaroo (09-25-2018)