Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
an
Participant[quote=LAAFTERHOURS]
Smokes wasnt the best choice of words. Beats is probably more appropriate. That being said, I referenced base models and the 328i is not the base 3 series (320i is). 328i is 38k so arguably that is not an apples to apples comparison. Link for your reference http://www.bmwusa.com/bmw/3series/sedan (320i / 320ix are 7.1 seconds 0-60). [/quote]Well, you have to compare apple to apple then. The 320i starts at $32k and 328i starts at $37k, that’s TrueCar price. So, you’re right, the Model 3 would beat the 320i 7.1 sec by a few tenths, assuming that <7 second = 6.9 seconds. But then the 320i would be $3k less, which would be enough to pay for about 60k miles in gas. So, that would negate the Model 3 fuel cost advantage for the first 60k miles. This is also assuming your kid will be living in a house once he/she move out and not in an older condo that doesn't have a charging station.This is also comparing against an overpriced BMW. If you compare to a ATS/Q50/TL-S, you can pick those up for ~$35k and they're all in the 5 seconds range for 0-60.
[quote=LAAFTERHOURS]In my post I mentioned my child will be driving in 7 years (at best). Assuming that in 7 years my Model 3 will be heavily used for 3-4 years, the car will probably be valued in the high teens on resale. A new corolla runs roughly 17k and up. My first car was a hand-me-down Jeep Grand Cherokee. When the Jeep was new, the car was pushing 30K but it was used and probably valued in the high teens when it was handed over to me.. Pumping cash into that thing weekly sucked as a teen. My point was that getting a first car that is a used electric car not requiring gas money on a weekly basis (which is something all or most of us had to do) is a nice benefit on top of the car itself.[/quote]My first car was a 6 years used Corolla that was ~$11k new at the time. I didn't have to worry about fuel cost. But I would have been stoked and be gladly to pay for the fuel cost if I was given a BMW as my first car (even a 7 years used one).
Participant[quote=LAAFTERHOURS]Performance smokes the comparable options.[/quote]Really? Model 3 0-60 is <7 seconds while the current 328i is 5.6 seconds, the 340i is 4.6 seconds, the M3 is 3.8 seconds. So, I'm not sure the Model 3 will do the smoking.
[quote=LAAFTERHOURS]How stoked would I have been when I started to drive knowing I didnt have to pay for gas (ever)?[/quote]I would assume that if you're getting a $35k+ car as your first car, you wouldn't be paying for gas, even if it's a BMW or Benz. I didn't pay for my gas when I first started driving and my first car was a Corolla, not a 3-series. I think I would be stoked to get a $35k car as my first car more so than the fact that I won't have to pay for gas.
Participant[quote=ocrenter]I do agree there are still limitations and much needed progress is still necessary to bring the technology to the broader public.
However, with TOU rates, the charging can be exceptionally affordable. And certainly used LEAFs out there are dirt cheap to afford.
Assuming a 30 mile each way commute, that translates to 1200 miles per month, or $100 gas bill at 30 mile/gal and $2.5 per gal.
Even without solar, TOU rates at night are at 18 cents per kwh. at 4 miles per kwh, that 1200 miles would yield a cost of $54.
And this comparison is with gasoline at its lowest cost in some time.
If we are looking at folks with solar like you and I, it becomes an absolute no-brainer. I just had my yearly SDGE bill coming in. $150 for my yearly electric bill when my electric bill was previously $1800 and my gasoline bill was previously $2200. So essentially $4000 bill reduced to $150 after spending $10k for the solar panels. Which means a ROI rate of less than 3 years.[/quote]
Well, if you’re comparing a Leaf, you should be comparing it against a Prius. Which gets 54/50 MPG. If you drive 100k miles, you’ll need 2000 gallons, ~$3, that’s $6k in fuel cost.With solar, that’s about $2k in electricity cost with TOU and solar. Without solar and with TOU, your cost would be ~$5k. That’s assuming you work during the day and only charge at night. If you’re a stay at home spouse and drive/charge it through out the day, it would be >$5k. So, the fuel saving it’s too big IMHO.
I don’t think $1-4k fuel saving over 100k miles is that big of a deal.
Also keep in mind not all of us have roof big enough to satisfy all of our usage. I maxed out my roof and it’s still not enough to put me at $0, so if I get an EV, i’m not sure how much it’ll cost me. I haven’t properly done the math yet.
Participant[quote=svelte]One more thing: EVs lose as much as 60% of their range in colder, northern climates. That is very significant.
Agree that autonomous vehicles would do more to promote long commutes than fuel costs, but spending lots of time in a car – whether I’m driving or not – getting to work is not appealing to me. So electric, autonomous, no matter, I’m still keeping my commute short. As will most people, I bet. I’ve got better things to do with my time.[/quote]Agree, it’s not for me either. But I know a lot of people are OK w/ that.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]Bakersfield doesn’t need a “job center” but does have many teaching, govm’t jobs and medical jobs. Like Fresno, it is primarily an agricultural hub. People who are highly trained in high tech jobs, for example, wouldn’t have any reason to move to Bakersfield.[/quote]
But your reason as to why Temecula is an exurb is its distance to job centers. Temecula have all the jobs you listed for Bakersfield and Fresno.Participant[quote=bearishgurl]How am I trying to make SD into the next LA? It can never be LA. Save for some of its crowded beach areas (ex: Santa Monica, Venice), LA County was planned a helluva lot better than SD County was. [/quote]There’s no point in debating this topic if you think this is the case. IMHO, LA is the worse planned county. SD County is drastically better planned. Your desire in term of growth will make SD into LA in 100 years.
ParticipantBack to the Model 3, I don’t understand why you would say the owner of a Model 3 would be immune to fuel costs. Have you checked your SDG&E bill lately? If you don’t have solar, I wouldn’t say you’re immune to fuel costs.
I would say autonomous cars would affect the commute more than an EV. With autonomous car, you can actually work while you’re “commuting”. Then, essentially, you’re no longer “commuting”, since you can start working as soon as you get into the car.
As for road noise, I think tire noise is much louder than the noise the engine make at ~2k RPM driving down the freeway. So, I don’t think EV would make that big of a difference.
You also have to keep in mind that EV today is only viable for a small group of people. It’s not suitable for 18-wheelers, worker trucks, poor people, people who live in older areas in a condo/apartment, etc. I think EV has a long long way to go to be suitable to replace majority of vehicles on the road. Unless there’s a breakthrough that would drastically decrease the cost of producing batteries and drastically increase the density of the battery and drastically reduce the charge time of the battery (20-30 min down to 2-3 minutes).
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]Temecula is in Riverside County and is an exurb of Riverside, the county seat. It is 40+ miles from major job centers in Riverside (its own county), 40-60 miles from SD County job centers, 35-55 miles from Orange County job centers, 40-65 miles from LA County job centers and 50+ miles to San Bernardino County (not sure if any major “job centers” exist in SanBern Co).[/quote]By that logic, wouldn’t Bakerfield and exurb too? Since it doesn’t really have a job center. Temecula actually have more major corporations than Bakersfield, all the while, having 1/3 of the population.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]Fresno is a city and county in its own right. Clovis is one of its “suburbs.” Santa Barbara is a city and county in its own right. Even though they are both in the same county, Santa Maria is NOT an exurb of Santa Barbara because there is too much open space between the two cities. It is a city in its own right. Compare San Diego to Julian (there really isn’t a comparison in SD County because the topography is so different and Julian is so small.) Perhaps SD to Valley Center. Bakersfield is a city in its own right and the county seat of Kern County. It stands alone.[/quote]So, what is your criteria that make a city a city vs a city that’s an exurb? I still don’t see any clue in your answer to solidify your criteria.
Especially since you say it has to do to location and not population or jobs. Why is Temecula an exurb while Santa Maria is not?
Participant[quote=The-Shoveler][quote=mixxalot]I know a guy who commutes daily from Dana Point to San Diego for work! Now that is pure insanity![/quote]
I imagine this is the same type of thing that happens to almost everyone in L.A. (although in this case a little more extreme maybe).
You starting out buying a home 15 minutes from work, then you get laid off and your next gig is 40-60 miles away.
I could see someone who got laid off from QCOM getting a Job in Irvine etc…
To top it off our spouse still works Local LOL. (I have seen it happen many times).[/quote]This is why LA is a big giant clusterf*ck and I wouldn’t want to live there. People like BG is trying to make SD into the next LA. But I’m glad SD’s city leader actually have good urban planner in place. Which is why most of the jobs are in UTC/Sorrento Valley area. With a smaller subset in Carlsbad, Rancho Bernardo, Downtown. It’s much easier to build public transit when you only have a handful of places people need to go to during working days. I get exciting seeing new high rises popping up in UTC/Sorrento Valley area.
Participant[quote=The-Shoveler][quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl]shoveler, “exurban” has nothing to do with size and everything to do with location.[/quote]What characteristic of a particular location would make a city an exurban vs urban?[/quote]
If your working in Carlsbad is it still an exurb?
when an exurb starts having it’s own suburbs is it still a exurb?[/quote]Is Fresno urban/suburb/or exurb? How about Clovis, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, Bakersfield? This is why I ask her what is her location parameter to make a city an urban/suburb/exurb. Because it’s not clear what they are.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]shoveler, “exurban” has nothing to do with size and everything to do with location.[/quote]What characteristic of a particular location would make a city an exurban vs urban?
Participant[quote=SK in CV]No. Everyone was not destroyed across the board. And I never claimed that there was no damage done at the top end of the economy during the recent crash.
Families whose fortunes went from $500 million to $300 million were not destroyed in the same way as those families who lost their upper middle class jobs, and had their homes foreclosed were. Nor the same as the lower income group that lost their jobs and didn’t get new ones for 2 to 3 years. The former group was angry they lost a lot of money. The latter two had their entire lives turned on its head. They are not the same.
A crash is not the only proven way to reduce the wealth gap, though I’ll admit that economic models are sketchy at best for taxes doing the trick. Calling those models proof could be an exaggeration. However there are some reasonably strong economic models that tie the ever increasing wealth gap to the tax preferences shown to capital over the last 35 years. It’s not unreasonable to argue that reversing that policy will also reverse the wealth gap. It’s surely preferable to a crash that is sure to put millions out of work and cause significantly more suffering than the wealth gap does. Killing the patient with the cure isn’t the answer.[/quote]
Yes, I agree those in the $300M+ weren’t affected like the rest of us. But that’s the 0.1%-er. I feel like those people will continue to grow their wealth at much faster rate than the rest of us. Which is why I say your proposal won’t change that either. As I stated, the power of compound interest will guarantee that their wealth will grow at a much faster rate, which mean the wealth gap will only continue to widen.The wealth gap between the upper middle class (the top 10%) and the bottom 90% as well. So, your tax proposal might slow down the wealth gap speed between the top 10% and the 90%, but I don’t think it would affect the 0.1%. But again, I think it would only slow down the wealth gap speed, but I don’t think it would decrease the wealth gap.
I wasn’t talking about model. I was talking about what happened in the past. If your goal is to reduce the wealth gap, then bad economic condition is the best way to achieve that. When you have good economic time, those who are already well off will be the group that will benefit the most of the booming economy. Talking about data vs model, has there ever been a time in the past where wealth gap decrease while there’s an economic boom? We can however, point to decreasing wealth gap during economic collapse though. So, if you can point to a time where there’s an economic boom and a decrease in wealth gap, then we can analyze the tax policies and various economic policies at the time to see what we can do today to achieve both economic boom and closing of a wealth gap. I actually would love to have both economic boom and decrease wealth gap. That means everyone would be well off. I just don’t think changing some minor tax policy would achieve it.
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=AN]Although economist might not advocate for it, but that’s the best solution to shrink the wealth gap. Historical data proves that it works. [/quote]
Sorry, that’s just wrong. Severe market crashes invariably lead to high unemployment. Unemployment invariably affects the lower and lower-middle economic classes disproportionately. Only in backwards world is that a path towards closing the wealth gap.[/quote]
Where have you been in this last crash? Yes, there were a lot of unemployment, but there were a lot of foreclosed upper middle class people too. Everyone was destroyed pretty evenly across board. Even the ultra rich were taken down a few notches.With that said, I agree that it would be a backward world. But that’s the only proven way to reduce the wealth gap. I don’t think your tax proposal would do it. But we’ll never know.
-
AuthorPosts
