How would you prefer to pay for Supercharging?

[SageBrush]

When you (JoRey) are talking about 400,000 people, saying "they are..." is almost certainly wrong. Whatever you say in that "..." is almost certainly wrong => such as Black people are...Women are....Model 3 buyers are.... [pretty damn offensive opening isn't it]
Perhaps you are "..." and HOPE the rest who are doing one similar thing are identical in all other ways.
If YOU can't afford an EV bill, don't push that on others who are different than you.

Time for us Peons to unite ;-)

Personally, I think JoRey was having a Marie Antoinette moment: "Well ... if they cannot drive Ludi's, give them a Model 3. "

 

[MiamiNole]

Barney told me that everyone is special, everyone in his or her own way.

 

[AZ Desert Driver]

And to the whole forum world - I'm having a bad day and lashed out on some threads in an unusually aggressive/pessimistic tone. Perhaps accurate, but not the tone/mood I wish to share. Please forgive my mood swing.

 

[Rocky_H]

People must understand that the Model III buyer is an average person. As such, they are substantially more limited in the amount of money they can spend. [...] Where most people who can afford a model iii, live in a apartment.

Let’s see, where do you live? Oh, Anaheim California. That explains a lot. Speaking of explaining, I’ll explain a bit to you. Your perception of this is skewed by your living in an area where housing prices are OUTRAGEOUS, compared to most of the country. I get that in your world, people who can buy the ridiculously expensive houses have tons of money, and can buy an $80K+ car (or two). People in that area who can’t afford the houses but live in apartments still buy $30K to $50K cars.

You are apparently unfamiliar with most of the middle of the country, where housing prices and incomes are much lower. Most people, regardless of where they live can’t even consider an $80K+ car. People who are doing well do mostly live in houses, but a $30K or $40K car is still quite significant. Most of the lower income people who do live in apartments in those areas are more considering $15K cars—generally used.

Seriously, go read through a lot of the comments on Tesla’s posts on Facebook. People laugh and make fun of the idea that people are using the word “affordable” to refer to the Model 3, because it is out of reach at $35K+. Many people frequently ask for Tesla to make a $15K or $20K car so that regular people can get one.

 

[Red Sage]

When you (JoRey) are talking about 400,000 people, saying "they are..." is almost certainly wrong. Whatever you say in that "..." is almost certainly wrong => such as Black people are...Women are....Model 3 buyers are.... [pretty damn offensive opening isn't it]
Perhaps you are "..." and HOPE the rest who are doing one similar thing are identical in all other ways.
If YOU can't afford an EV bill, don't push that on others who are different than you.

I read, and write, an ellipsis as a pause. What exactly do you read it as...?

 

[Red Sage]

Barney told me that everyone is special, everyone in his or her own way.

Barney must die.

 

[Red Sage]

Seriously, go read through a lot of the comments on Tesla’s posts on Facebook. People laugh and make fun of the idea that people are using the word “affordable” to refer to the Model 3, because it is out of reach at $35K+. Many people frequently ask for Tesla to make a $15K or $20K car so that regular people can get one.

I often agree with you, and that line of chastisement may well have been deserved, but I wanted to comment about this paragraph in particular...

About 25 years ago, the average price for a new car was right around $15,000 to $17,000. That was a long time ago. The majority of cars sold today cost in the $22,000 to $24,000 price range. The average sale price of a new car is over $31,000 today. With these market conditions, anyone asking Tesla Motors to offer a mass market car at under $15,000 might as well be asking them to build a car to be sold at under $10,000 or to be given away for free. The result would be the same: failure, and bankruptcy.

Most major manufacturers have already abandoned the sub-$15,000 price point for entry-level cars. Those are companies that build millions of vehicles per year, and they have determined that even they cannot provide new vehicles at that price point any longer, despite their deep pockets, influence with suppliers, and extreme capacity. Before long, those traditional automobile manufacturers will have abandoned the sub-$20,000 market as well (reports are that Dodge/Chrysler already have). Just watch. It is unfair to expect a relative newcomer to sell vehicles at a price point that cannot hope to be profitable, even for long established players.

See, while people may ask for 'cheap' cars to be available... They don't buy them. Typically, 'cheap' cars are outsold by cars that cost twice as much or more. People who buy new cars want to buy what they want to drive.

During the month of May 2016, only one of the top 20 best selling passenger vehicles in the US cost under $15,000 as a base price. The Nissan Versa at #14 does show a base price of $11,990... The Kia Forte has a $15,990 base price currently, and comes in at #19. The Nissan Sentra starts at $16,780 and reached #9. The Mazda 3 is $17,845 to start, and was #18 in May. Chevrolet Cruze #11 is $16,620 as a base price.

More telling perhaps, is the Year-to-Date sales in the US. Hyundai Accent at least cracks the top 25 at #24, with a $14,745 base price. As above, the $11,990 Nissan Versa makes a decent showing at #14.

From a certain perspective, a $35,000 base price is indeed affordable, considering what the Model ☰ will be. It is a car that would have been literally impossible to build 30, 20, 15 years ago. Naysayers have claimed it was impossible since well before Tesla Motors was founded. It is something that skeptical folk will still proclaim is 'impossible' even when the cars are driving around their local neighborhoods. It will be a $35,000 car with the Performance to rival a $46,000 BMW 340i Sedan while not using a single drop of gasoline or diesel fuel. Running on electricity, its cost per mile drops significantly, resulting in what will probably be 100+ MPGe. Because of that, it will have a likely cost of ownership that puts it in line with a Midsize sedan that costs around $25,000. Possibly even less if a buyer qualifies for Federal and State incentives. And the more you drive it, the more affordable it will be.

Further...? Until someone actually manufactures long range electric cars en masse... And sells them to people who WANT to own them... There won't be a potential market for them among used cars that are 'affordable' to those who cannot, or will not, buy a new car. Los Angeles is covered with used car lots that offer BMW 3-Series or GMC Yukons for 'cheap'.

 

[AZ Desert Driver]

I often agree with you, and that line of chastisement may well have been deserved, but I wanted to comment about this paragraph in particular...


Only a small edit to this very good reply. 25 years ago, a $15,000 car was purchased with wages earned in an environment that is different than today. I don't have inflation data at my finger tips, but here is a SWAG to put it in context. " a 15,000 car was bought 25 years ago when the average salary was $45,000/yr; and a so $22,000 car today represents an average car when the average wage is $66,000/yr". {Please feel free to insert real numbers instead of my 3x anal extraction}
My first house cost $18,000 - it was a 3 bdrm, ranch nice neighborhood. The average starting salary in 1970 was $6,000/yr - so a nice house represented 3x salary 46 years ago. I bought a nice Porsche for $x,000 and that was an outrageous price for a car those days. (it was not an average car, and my salary was not average either but bought when the average was different than today)
Point is "affordable" is a soft target and Wages differs based on (engineer/liberal art degree; degree or non degree; good school or no school, employer; industry; resume, etc).
Comparison of 25 year old prices without context of purchasing power is a little misleading.

 

[melindav]

To add to @Rocky_H point that housing costs vary significantly regionally, many places (The NW specifically) rent has shot up so much in the last five years that you can buy for less than you can rent. So basing economic judgements on if one rents vs owns no longer works.
There is a lot more to someone's finances than how they pay for their home. I have friends with houses and more debt from other bills than their house is worth and renter friends with zero debt and everything thing in between.

 

[Rocky_H]

I often agree with you, and that line of chastisement may well have been deserved, but I wanted to comment about this paragraph in particular...

About 25 years ago, the average price for a new car was right around $15,000 to $17,000. That was a long time ago. The majority of cars sold today cost in the $22,000 to $24,000 price range. The average sale price of a new car is over $31,000 today. With these market conditions, anyone asking Tesla Motors to offer a mass market car at under $15,000 might as well be asking them to build a car to be sold at under $10,000 or to be given away for free. The result would be the same: failure, and bankruptcy.

Most major manufacturers have already abandoned the sub-$15,000 price point for entry-level cars. Those are companies that build millions of vehicles per year, and they have determined that even they cannot provide new vehicles at that price point any longer, despite their deep pockets, influence with suppliers, and extreme capacity. Before long, those traditional automobile manufacturers will have abandoned the sub-$20,000 market as well (reports are that Dodge/Chrysler already have). Just watch. It is unfair to expect a relative newcomer to sell vehicles at a price point that cannot hope to be profitable, even for long established players.

See, while people may ask for 'cheap' cars to be available... They don't buy them. Typically, 'cheap' cars are outsold by cars that cost twice as much or more. People who buy new cars want to buy what they want to drive.

During the month of May 2016, only one of the top 20 best selling passenger vehicles in the US cost under $15,000 as a base price. The Nissan Versa at #14 does show a base price of $11,990... The Kia Forte has a $15,990 base price currently, and comes in at #19. The Nissan Sentra starts at $16,780 and reached #9. The Mazda 3 is $17,845 to start, and was #18 in May. Chevrolet Cruze #11 is $16,620 as a base price.

More telling perhaps, is the Year-to-Date sales in the US. Hyundai Accent at least cracks the top 25 at #24, with a $14,745 base price. As above, the $11,990 Nissan Versa makes a decent showing at #14.

From a certain perspective, a $35,000 base price is indeed affordable, considering what the Model ☰ will be. It is a car that would have been literally impossible to build 30, 20, 15 years ago. Naysayers have claimed it was impossible since well before Tesla Motors was founded. It is something that skeptical folk will still proclaim is 'impossible' even when the cars are driving around their local neighborhoods. It will be a $35,000 car with the Performance to rival a $46,000 BMW 340i Sedan while not using a single drop of gasoline or diesel fuel. Running on electricity, its cost per mile drops significantly, resulting in what will probably be 100+ MPGe. Because of that, it will have a likely cost of ownership that puts it in line with a Midsize sedan that costs around $25,000. Possibly even less if a buyer qualifies for Federal and State incentives. And the more you drive it, the more affordable it will be.

Further...? Until someone actually manufactures long range electric cars en masse... And sells them to people who WANT to own them... There won't be a potential market for them among used cars that are 'affordable' to those who cannot, or will not, buy a new car. Los Angeles is covered with used car lots that offer BMW 3-Series or GMC Yukons for 'cheap'.

@Red Sage , I love ya, man, and I enjoy your posts on both forums, but you are arguing against something I am not saying because you missed the point.

Your very long comment would be pertinent if I had said Tesla should offer a $20,000 car. I never said that. I had said that is what other people have asked for, just to indicate that for much of the country, $10K or $15K or $20K is really all they can afford to spend on a car. Tesla is CLEARLY not going to do that. They CAN’T do that right now because battery prices just aren’t that low, and I have told those people who ask for it repeatedly that it’s NOT going to happen. Sure, people want it, but reality is tough.

My point was about people in the Tesla forums mistakenly treating a $40K car purchase as if it’s pocket change because their perception is shaped by the ridiculously wealthy areas of the country they live in. They extrapolate from the really general statistic of wealthier trending with higher ratio of houses to see that people around them in houses have Porsches, Tesla Model Ses, Mercedes S500, etc. and they think, “Oh, the Model 3 will be cheaper, so that’s what the poorer people will get.”

Yes, the average new car price is now about $31,000, but that is of course the mean, not the median, so that $31,000 mean is pulled up by the cars that are $60K+, while a lot of cars sell in the mid 20’s, below that average.

So my real point is that in most of the country, the upper income homeowners can afford Model 3, but lower income people still can’t and just buy used cars. Cars are pretty well made these days and last a while, so they are the cars that were $30K new and are selling a few years old for $15K.

 

[JeffK]

Yes, the average new car price is now about $31,000, but that is of course the mean, not the median, so that $31,000 mean is pulled up by the cars that are $60K+, while a lot of cars sell in the mid 20’s, below that average.

When you go to price a new car look only for the ones that fit families... and they are all pretty expensive.

When Elon says 50% of the population should be able to afford the Model 3 he's also talking about the eventual used car market. As richer people get hardware upgrades they are going to be selling off their older Model 3s.

 

[Red Sage]

Point is "affordable" is a soft target and Wages differs based on (engineer/liberal art degree; degree or non degree; good school or no school, employer; industry; resume, etc). Comparison of 25 year old prices without context of purchasing power is a little misleading.

A good point, but I tend to make it a different way. I never rest on the concepts of 'purchasing power' or 'adjusted dollars'. I see those as financial constructs that have no actual value in the real world.

To me 'affordable' means that you can buy something without feeling broke afterward. Someone who is 'able to make the payments' is not necessarily getting something they can afford. I believe more in liquidity than credit ratings. Better to buy things outright whenever you can, and pay no interest on anything if you can get away with it.

It may be considered 'smart' in the modern world to 'carry a balance' and never pay things off -- but it seems like a surrender to the notion of being eternally in debt to me. Enough have given that surrender that the concept of having 'good credit' now means you have proven your willingness to remain in debt.

If you can buy a $15,000 used car and still have $30,000 in the bank, you are in good shape. If you have less than $1,800,000 in assets, it probably isn't a good idea to buy a $150,000 car. If you are living paycheck-to-paycheck just to 'make the payments', you are undoubtedly living beyond your means. Find the ratio that works best for you.

 

[Red Sage]

@Red Sage , I love ya, man, and I enjoy your posts on both forums, but you are arguing against something I am not saying because you missed the point.

Your very long comment would be pertinent if I had said Tesla should offer a $20,000 car. I never said that. I had said that is what other people have asked for, just to indicate that for much of the country, $10K or $15K or $20K is really all they can afford to spend on a car. Tesla is CLEARLY not going to do that. They CAN’T do that right now because battery prices just aren’t that low, and I have told those people who ask for it repeatedly that it’s NOT going to happen. Sure, people want it, but reality is tough.

My point was about people in the Tesla forums mistakenly treating a $40K car purchase as if it’s pocket change because their perception is shaped by the ridiculously wealthy areas of the country they live in. They extrapolate from the really general statistic of wealthier trending with higher ratio of houses to see that people around them in houses have Porsches, Tesla Model Ses, Mercedes S500, etc. and they think, “Oh, the Model 3 will be cheaper, so that’s what the poorer people will get.”

Yes, the average new car price is now about $31,000, but that is of course the mean, not the median, so that $31,000 mean is pulled up by the cars that are $60K+, while a lot of cars sell in the mid 20’s, below that average.

So my real point is that in most of the country, the upper income homeowners can afford Model 3, but lower income people still can’t and just buy used cars. Cars are pretty well made these days and last a while, so they are the cars that were $30K new and are selling a few years old for $15K.

Pardon me, but in the midst of your chastisement, it didn't seem as if you were arguing as a Devil's Advocate. My point is that for people who actually buy new cars, the Tesla Model ☰ is every bit as 'affordable' as every other new vehicle on the market, and to the very same audience. Those who are not, or won't be, on the market for a new car, are not, and shouldn't be, a concern for Tesla Motors. IF you are able to responsibly consider a purchase of a new, top-of-the-line Honda Accord, Toyota Camry, Chevrolet Malibu, Nissan Altima, Hyundai Sonata, or Kia Optima (cars that each sold over 150,000 units in the US during 2015), but would NOT have gone 'upscale' to a Lexus IS, BMW 3-Series, AUDI A4, Cadillac ATS, or Mercedes-Benz C-Class...? You may very well find the Tesla Model ☰ to be 'affordable'.

 

[tsla007]

Why not have both options at time of purchase? I don't understand this question at all.
I would just put do you want lifetime sc at time of purchase-if they answer yes 1500.00 more.
If not they will have to pay whatever at the charger. Paying at the charger is not for me.
We all have opinions. I believe the cost should be absorbed by all Tesla purchasers no matter how
much you use it. It seems the only ones concerned about it are those in Cali where the chargers are always full
and a waiting line and that will only get worse before it gets better.

 

[AZ Desert Driver]

A good point, but I tend to make it a different way. I never rest on the concepts of 'purchasing power' or 'adjusted dollars'. I see those as financial constructs that have no actual value in the real world.

To me 'affordable' means that you can buy something without feeling broke afterward. Someone who is 'able to make the payments' is not necessarily getting something they can afford. I believe more in liquidity than credit ratings. Better to buy things outright whenever you can, and pay no interest on anything if you can get away with it.

It may be considered 'smart' in the modern world to 'carry a balance' and never pay things off -- but it seems like a surrender to the notion of being eternally in debt to me. Enough have given that surrender that the concept of having 'good credit' now means you have proven your willingness to remain in debt.

If you can buy a $15,000 used car and still have $30,000 in the bank, you are in good shape. If you have less than $1,800,000 in assets, it probably isn't a good idea to buy a $150,000 car. If you are living paycheck-to-paycheck just to 'make the payments', you are undoubtedly living beyond your means. Find the ratio that works best for you.

Your rules of financial management are rock solid. Years ago, I bought a car and made payments (say $300/mo). After I paid off the car, I kept the car and continued to make payments to myself at $300/mo. Rather than pay the bank 5%, I earned 5%. Next time I bought a car, I had the cash, but continued to pay myself $300/mo. This car account still pays insurance/tires/depreciation/deductibles, etc. Years ago, I needed that separate account to help me stay focused on what a car costs. Now I can do it with a spreadsheet. I watch car commercials advertise "payments of only $300/mo" and just cringe at the distraction from true cost. There are simpletons that buy that way, which is why the ads keep coming. I too have tried to explain finances (to otherwise quite bright folks)...but some just can't get Present Value concepts.

That being said ---I can now make an even better calculation ---should I borrow $60,000 at 1.49% APR, or should I pull money from my investments (pay cash). Will my investments return more than 1.49% over the next few years? Nice to be able to evaluate Opportunity Cost. If only my crystal ball was clearer than a bowling ball I could determine if my investments will rise or fall over the short term. Over an intermediate and long term, the market has always been rising.

 

[Fourdoor]

Your rules of financial management are rock solid. Years ago, I bought a car and made payments (say $300/mo). After I paid off the car, I kept the car and continued to make payments to myself at $300/mo. Rather than pay the bank 5%, I earned 5%. Next time I bought a car, I had the cash, but continued to pay myself $300/mo. This car account still pays insurance/tires/depreciation/deductibles, etc. Years ago, I needed that separate account to help me stay focused on what a car costs. Now I can do it with a spreadsheet. I watch car commercials advertise "payments of only $300/mo" and just cringe at the distraction from true cost. There are simpletons that buy that way, which is why the ads keep coming. I too have tried to explain finances (to otherwise quite bright folks)...but some just can't get Present Value concepts.

That being said ---I can now make an even better calculation ---should I borrow $60,000 at 1.49% APR, or should I pull money from my investments (pay cash). Will my investments return more than 1.49% over the next few years? Nice to be able to evaluate Opportunity Cost. If only my crystal ball was clearer than a bowling ball I could determine if my investments will rise or fall over the short term. Over an intermediate and long term, the market has always been rising.

If the investment you speak of is your home, and you can either re-finance or take a second mortgage at a low interest rate I would prefer that over taking equity out of a stock portfolio, taking equity out of the home doesn't hurt it's potential growth like taking equity out of a stock. Also, since the interest is tax deductible on a mortgage, you may have an effective interest rate lower than 1.49%.... up to you to do the math to see if that is correct for your situation

Keith

 

[AZ Desert Driver]

If the investment you speak of is your home, and you can either re-finance or take a second mortgage at a low interest rate I would prefer that over taking equity out of a stock portfolio, taking equity out of the home doesn't hurt it's potential growth like taking equity out of a stock. Also, since the interest is tax deductible on a mortgage, you may have an effective interest rate lower than 1.49%.... up to you to do the math to see if that is correct for your situation

Keith

Thanks Keith. I paid off my home loans quite awhile ago, so resurrecting them would have some front end cost -appraisal, loan origination etc. I could also Margin my stock portfolio - quick but interest rates are not 1.49% fixed for 72 months. I could cash in some stock winners and ensure a tax bill, which can go into the $7500 tax credit. I could transfer from Trad IRA to Roth IRA and generate the tax bill, but not capture the cash and still need a loan. I could turn my mattress inside out and find dollar bills.
Its nice to have options, and the time/talent to weigh them. Some folks are not equipped to perform Opportunity Cost evaluations.

 

[Garlan Garner]

If the investment you speak of is your home, and you can either re-finance or take a second mortgage at a low interest rate I would prefer that over taking equity out of a stock portfolio, taking equity out of the home doesn't hurt it's potential growth like taking equity out of a stock. Also, since the interest is tax deductible on a mortgage, you may have an effective interest rate lower than 1.49%.... up to you to do the math to see if that is correct for your situation

Keith

Equity in a stock portfolio? Who's stock portfolio has done anything in the past 5 years? Mine hasn't. LOL

 

[AZ Desert Driver]

Equity in a stock portfolio? Who's stock portfolio has done anything in the past 5 years? Mine hasn't. LOL

Sorry to hear that. I just bought DJIA and S&P index funds and sat back [ and my favorite is BRKA ]. Yes, some chatter, but up nicely. I don't chase the dips, buy and hold. Its worked for me.

 

[cpa]

If the investment you speak of is your home, and you can either re-finance or take a second mortgage at a low interest rate I would prefer that over taking equity out of a stock portfolio, taking equity out of the home doesn't hurt it's potential growth like taking equity out of a stock. Also, since the interest is tax deductible on a mortgage, you may have an effective interest rate lower than 1.49%.... up to you to do the math to see if that is correct for your situation

Keith

Keith, ya gotta be careful about deducting home mortgage interest on your personal tax return. The regs are tricky when someone pulls cash out of their home and does not use that money directly for home improvements or for investment purposes under the tracing rules.

I am not saying that pulling cash from the equity in your home is wrong, and the interest cannot be deducted; I am saying you better watch where you step. Talk to a professional or read the fine IRS publication that concerns itself with deducting mortgage interest.