Update: we’ve already hit the €5000 goal, in a little over 24 hours. Considering I thought this would take weeks – assuming we’d hit the goal at all – I’m a bit overwhelmed with all the love and support. Thank you so, so much. Since people are still donating, I upped the goal to €7500 to give people something to donate to.
You people are wild. Amazing.
It’s time for an OSNews fundrasier! This time, it’s unplanned due to a financial emergency after our car unexpectedly had to be scrapped (you can find more details below). If you want to support one of the few independent technology news websites left, this is your chance. OSNews is entirely supported by you, our readers, so go to our Ko-Fi and donate to our emergency fundraiser today!
Why support OSNews?
- We do not run any ads, so we don’t have to be friendly to advertisers (i.e. the technology companies we’re supposed to report on).
- We are not owned and controlled by a large media company dictating our tone and content. You’d be surprised how many other sites are.
- We do not use any “AI”; not during research, not during writing, not for images, nothing.
- We rely entirely on your support to keep going.
In short, we are truly independent. After turning off our ads, our Patreons and donors are our sole source of income, and since I know many of you prefer the occasional individual donation over recurring Patreon ones, I run a fundraiser a few times a year to rally the troops, so to speak. This particular fundraiser wasn’t planned, however, given the circumstances described below, several readers have urged me to run a fundraiser now.
We’re incredibly grateful for even having the opportunity to do something like this, and as always, I’d like to stress that OSNews will never be paywalled, and that access to our website will never be predicated on your financial support. You can ignore all of this and continue on reading the site as usual.
What’s going on?
Sadly, and unexpectedly, we’ve had to scrap our car. Our 2007 Hyundai Santa Fe did not survive this Arctic Winter, as the two decades in the biting cold has taken a toll on a long list of components and parts – it would no longer start. After consulting an expert, we determined that repairs would’ve been too expensive to make financial sense for such an old vehicle. Sometimes, you have to take the loss lest you throw money down a pit. An unreliable car in an Arctic climate is a really bad idea, since getting stranded on a back road somewhere when it’s -30°C (or colder) with two toddlers is not going to be a fun time.
On top of that, my wife uses our car to commute to work, and while using the bus is going to be fine for a little while, her job in home care for the very elderly and recovering alcoholics is incredibly stressful and intensive. Dealing with bus schedules and wait times at such low temperatures is not exactly compatible with her job. Since she’s just recovering from a doctor-mandated rest period – very common in her line of work – her income has taken a hit. Taking professional care of people with severe dementia or other old-age related conditions is a thankless and underpaid job, and it’s no surprise those working in this profession often require mandated rest (and thus a temporary pay cut).
And so, urged on by readers on Mastodon, I’m doing an OSNews fundraiser to help us pay for the “new” car. Of course, we’re looking for a used car, not a new one, and based on our needs we’ve set a budget of around €10,000. This should allow us to buy something like a used Mazda 6 or Volvo V60 from around 2014-2015, or something similar in size and age, with a reasonable petrol engine (an EV is well out of our price range). We consider this the sweet spot for safety features, size, age, longevity, and reliability. We’ve got some savings, but most of the purchase price will have to come in the form of a car loan. We’ve already made some changes to our monthly expenses to cover for part of the monthly repayments, including a lucky break where our daycare expenses will be going down considerably next month.
Based on this, I’ve set the fundraising goal at €5000. If we manage to hit that – and the last few times we hit our goals quite fast – it won’t cover the entire purchase price, but it will cut down on the amount we need to loan considerably.
I’m feeling a little apprehensive about all of this, since this isn’t really an OSNews-related expense I can easily get some content out of. However, I’m entirely open to suggestions about how I could get some OSNews content out of this – perhaps buying and installing one of those Android headunits with a large display? They make them tailored for almost every vehicle at low prices on AliExpress, and the installation process and user experience might be something interesting to write about, as it’s potentially a great way to add some modern features to an older car. Feel free to make any suggestions.
I’m also open to other crazy ideas. If you happen to work at an automaker, and need some testing done in an Arctic environment – including ice roads – I’m open to ideas.
A few random notes
Since about half of our audience hails from the United States, I figured I’d make a few notes about car pricing in Europe, and in Arctic Sweden in particular. Cars are definitely more expensive here in Europe, doubly so in the sparsely populated area where we live (low supply leads to higher prices). Buying a brand new car is entirely out of the question due to pricing, and leasing is also far too expensive (well over €500/month for even a basic, small car). Used electric cars are still well out of our budget as well, and since we don’t have our own driveway, we wouldn’t be able to charge at home anyway.
Opting to forego a car entirely is sadly not an option either. With two small children, the Arctic climate, the remoteness, my wife’s stressful job and commute, and long distances to basic amenities, we can’t “go Dutch” and live off public transport and bicycles, no matter how much we’d want to. We have considered it, but it’s just not a realistic long-term solution. Had we lived in The Netherlands or in a big city, going carless would’ve possibly been a more realistic option.
We intended to drive the Santa Fe until it fell apart, but we did not expect this to happen so soon. Feel free to sound off if you have any other questions regarding car buying and ownership where we live, and I’ll try my best to answer your questions.
As always, thank you for your support, thank you for reading OSNews, and thank you for being here.
You almost don’t have to justify your desire to own a car to Americans – we NEED cars here, in almost every single place (save for maybe a handful of big cities, like New York City.) I say almost, because we have the “do you deserve it” fascists who will likely spew their hateful opinions at you.
CaptainN-,
I can’t afford new cars either. Depending on where you live and work, public transportation might be an option, but outside of metro strongholds, public transportation in the US (and probably lots of other places) can be bad to non-existent. Taxis may be an option, but I once needed to call a taxi for a 15 minute ride to the airport and that short ride was $75. Then again I’ve parked at the same airport for three days and that cost $150. The problem is everything is damn unaffordable no matter what you do.
Nearly everyone I know agrees there is an affordability crisis, but no one agrees about what to do about it because it gets political. People are against progressive taxation even though the billionaires are raking it in hand over foot by our subsidizing their corporate taxes. Blah.
Workers are more productive than ever but so much gets skimmed off the top that modern workers end up having to make do with less than our parents. Everything including food and daily accessories are becoming unaffordable. High ticket items like cars are especially painful 🙁
In the modern world, legal persons get socialism and real flesh people get neoliberalism.
Many pretend to generate outcome and useful work, or build useful products… the bosses pretend to pay us… and the line keeps going up. But the game of pretense will end someday, and it will be ugly.
Sometimes I wonder what kind of wealth is generated when a person is on the 10th laptop of their lives and on the 15th computer keyboard. What extra wealth and output is generated by that? I can only type on one keyboard (and actually, when I am by my desk, I type on a 1987 IBM Model M – and it has been in DAILY use for 40 years – the apex of sustainability!)
Shiunbird,
Hey as long as it keeps working! I think my current keyboard is 10 years old. My laptop was released eight years ago. I bought it used maybe six years ago. I buy hardware I intend to keep and use a long time, usually only replacing it when it breaks.
The kids kept breaking our phones though, the charging ports are too fragile.
I only buy secondhand computers. My latest score was saving a Dell Precision from recycling, but my Daily Driver is a Lenovo Thinkpad T480. It’s due for it’s 4th motherboard replacement as the soldered in USB C charging ports keep breaking
The123king,
If more us did this, it could make a big dent in e-waste. It really bothers me that manufacturers have been making new products less repairable though. I hate having to replace an entire device instead of a one component.
At least usb-c holds up better than micro-usb, but it could still be better. Even when they don’t break, they still tend to get loose with time (then you play the usb connector jiggle game). A more meaty connector would have solved this but “make it tiny” beat out longevity in the design priorities.
I have a lot of devices with bad ports and I thought I’d attempt to resolder new connectors but then I discovered they don’t use standard parts so I can’t just buy a grab-bag of replacements for when I need them, I’d need to special order specific parts for each device.
I really don’t want yet another physical usb standard, but it’s too bad they didn’t make it just a little bit better so the ports could last longer. Especially when it comes to charging ports, a few more cents in up front manufacturing costs would significantly improve the longevity of an expensive phone or laptop. This might not have been an accident though, manufactures have an incentive to make products fail as they age.
Alfman,
The issue is very nuanced, but at the heart of it is generational wealth transfer. Not rich vs poor, but old generation vs new generation.
(And since this is done without any person explicitly doing anything, I cannot blame individuals)
The cars older people drove?
Literally illegal to build today
The homes they built?
Once again illegal
What about walkable cities?
You knew it. Not legal anymore
You can tax the “rich” at 100% (I’m not joking), and it is not going to be enough.
Why?
Ultimately everything comes down to housing. Food, transport, everything.
And housing is a “game of musical chairs”
And we are not building enough chairs for everyone to sit. As people are forced out, it becomes a “natural auction”. Who is willing and able to sacrifice most so that they can live in a dignified home?
(And, literally no amount of money cannot fix this. Give people million dollars each, or even infinite money, yet keep the red tape, we would still have the same amount of homeless and same cost of living crisis.).
sukru,
I do agree with you about generational wealth transfer, however it’s pretty darn obvious there is also a rich and poor problem when you look at the data.
Money motivates people to work, too much or too little and people will stop working.
The wealthy have so much money that ironically if you redistributed it all to the rest of the population they might have too much to motivate them to keep working The answer is to have a more balanced wealth distribution. Older generations have proven it works, lifting millions out of poverty and delivering prosperity for the middle class. The problem is that the greed at the top won’t allow it to happen. For the elites, solving this problem is not only a non-goal, it’s an anti-goal.
Adding more money isn’t the problem, there is already plenty of it. It’s distribution that’s the problem.
Today’s economy is optimized by the people at the top for the people at the top. Many excuses are used to keep it this way, but it’s clearly possible to optimize for the middle class at the expense of the top and it would stop and reverse the falling standard of living that so many have been experiencing.
Alfman,
tsk, tsk, tsk (at myself). I knew it would come to this.
I could go on how this is not true in real life, and bring very real statistics on what happens to lottery winners on average… but I won’t do that
Alfman, my friend.. all “cost of living” is ultimately cost of housing.
And it is (almost) never a money problem. Has not been so in the past. Not so today either.
Back to “musical chairs”
Say there are 90 homes in a town, and 100 families who want to own one. Each home if $1,000. 90 / 100 can afford them. (90 people with $1,000 “net worth”, 10 people with less)
Some wealthy people come in, generous, they give each person $1,000 so they can afford a home.
City says: “great, but you cannot build any new homes”
There are still 90 homes. Everyone is $1,000 richer. Now each home cost $2,000, still only 90 can afford them.
The rich realizes this is a problem. And decide to throw more money at the problem: $2,000 per person so that everyone can have a home.
City still does not budge.
Now, everyone is $2,000 richer. But each home cost $4,000. Still only 90 of them can afford a home.
City still does not budge.
This continues until rich are truly exhausted. In the last “round” they have given each person $8,192,000. The homes now cost $16,383,000. Still 90 people own them.
And rich people are now poor as well.
Is this unrealistic?
This is more or less exactly what is happening in California today. Maybe new homes is not exactly zero. But it is close to negligible compared to population growth.
Until the city allows the housing “supply” to go 100 from 90, nothing will change.
California? Generously will allow to go to 91!
(For a more dramatic, real life example… Please look how how many existing “rich” home owners were allowed to rebuild their own homes after the Palisades fire? It has been over a year, and there was one yes only one permit. And that would probably take many years to finish with all the red tape. They have the money. They own the land. They have the right to rebuild. Zilch… Try entering your ruins to clean up, they’d fine and jail you)
In our great State of California it is literally illegal to move up in the social ladder. The lower rungs are cut by red tape.
sukru,
This isn’t about lotto winners, this is about the middle class. I know you’re smart enough to know this isn’t fake news – the wealth distribution keeps getting worse and is reflected in just about any economic data you can find on it. If we care about the middle class then we need to stop pretending the wealth distribution problem isn’t real.
Building out more houses is important. However..
1) About a quarter of new homes entering the market are being purchased by corporate investors rather than homeowners.
https://todayshomeowner.com/blog/guides/are-big-companies-buying-up-single-family-homes/
2) “There are approximately 7.15 million second homes in the United States…”
That the wealthy can afford multiple homes while the poor can afford none directly contributes to the housing shortage.
https://gitnux.org/second-home-ownership-statistics/
3) Housing prices distract from but don’t actually dismiss the fact that gains in GDP have been going to the top. Wages have not kept up with worker productivity. Rather than workers getting their fair share, owners have kept it for themselves.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-6/pdf/understanding-the-labor-productivity-and-compensation-gap.pdf
Meanwhile, as the cost of living increases, employee benefits offered to older generations are become significantly reduced for modern workers.
The data is so clear and unambiguous on all of this that I really struggle to understand how someone could ignore how damaging it’s been for the middle class unless they wanted to gaslight the public.
I suppose this could be an unfair accusation, but since providing for my family is one of my insecurities every single time you suggest money isn’t a real problem I find it insultingly tone deaf from the perspective of someone who’s had to make economic sacrifices in life.
sukru,
Bah, that may have been a bit too personal. I just wanted you to understand there are real people behind the statistics and that these aren’t just abstract arguments. Many of us are experiencing the affordability crisis first hand IRL and it feels jarring for the problems to be dismissed.
Maybe these problems would be more relatable and obvious if you put yourself in the shoes of someone with a median income (not even a low income) and try to envision what it’s like to pay your bills, rent, utilities, car, insurance, repairs, medicine, etc. Even food inflation becomes a source of financial stress.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/median-household-income-by-state
(taxes need to be subtracted)
Alfman,
Of course they are.
Remember the “musical chairs”
The chairs are extremely valuable, since government puts an artificial highly restrictive quota on their count. Like anything else that is sought out and rare “investors” will flock. (We can also call them “vultures”, predators)
The only way to fix this is having “oversupply”
And, no giving 10,000 permits per year is not oversupply. Just in California alone we have a cumulative deficit of 2,000,000 homes (Homeless, living in cars, living in RVs, living with roommates, living with extended family, couch surfing, and so on).
Only after building excess of 2,000,000 homes, possibly in a short period of time, we can really see its economic effects.
However Black Rock, “America’s Grandpa” and others who has the government in their pocket (this is non-partisan) will not allow people to live the American Dream.
This is asset inflation driven by scarcity. And it fees all other inflation and economic ills. Why is your coffee expensive? Your barista has to pay $3,000 rent. Why is your commute long? Not enough homes. Why is…? Again artificial lack of housing.
Until this is fixed nothing else matters
(A home actually costs $50k to build, or even less if you buy a kit online. But the cheapest you can find would be $800k here, and you would not want to live in it)
sukru,
That’s one contributing factor, which I agreed with. However it’s not the only one. On average retail stores have a vacant rate of about 8.7%.
https://www.retaildive.com/news/retail-store-closures-openings-shift-service-tenants/740615/
Some retail locations right off the highway by us have been vacant for a few years. So retail scarcity is obviously not the whole story. I agree housing supply needs to improve. However housing is not an excuse to not look at other factors repressing the middle class. If we’re not seriously looking at all the factors, then it can’t be said that we are tackling middle class problems in good faith.
That’s not a justification for dismissing the wealth distribution problem. Wealth distribution keeps getting worse for the middle class and a lot better for the billionaires. This is a fact, not opinion. We’ve talked about it many times and you keep wanting to dismiss it every time. Obviously you know it’s true, so serious question: why the stubborn refusal to fix such an obvious problem for the middle class?
My best guess is that many in the upper classes don’t want to optimize the economy for the middle class because it benefits them when the distribution skews to the top. Yeah, that logic checks out, but doesn’t that reinforce the notion the middle class are being held back by the greed at the top?
In my opinion you are both correct, because you both describe “concentration” and “monopoly” (in a broader meaning):
– wealth is highly concentrated these days
– infrastructure is highly concentrated these days
– endorsement is highly concentrated these days (like in try to bid for a public tender when your name is not DELL, IBM, DELOITTE, SAP, MICROSOFT whatever)
This kills and prevents competition and continuously inflates prices and inefficiency. And in my opinion, all 3 concentration issues need to be tackled in parallel because they amplify each other.
Andreas Reichel,
Yes. High wealth concentration isn’t new, but at least it wasn’t so extreme as to be a financial burden on everyone else. These days it’s so extreme that “highly concentrated” undersells just how bad it really is.
https://inequality.org/article/billionaire-wealth-concentration-is-even-worse-than-you-imagine/
That is true, it’s definitely frustrating to commute so far for work and it certainly impacts housing costs. Although this has been the case for all of my life and I haven’t seen data indicating this has gotten worse over time. Covid was an anomaly, but it was incredible to witness the dramatic change in traffic during work at home mandates. You’d drive on the same highways that were normally bumper to bumper traffic, and it was desolate. Companies pay nothing for roads, but are responsible for nearly all traffic on them. It seems kind of unfair that workers be burdened with paying for the infrastructure rather than companies most responsible for it’s use. Alas, different topic.
I’m not sure if you meant endorsement for elected positions in government? If so, I agree that’s another problem for middle class representation. I get the feeling this could be getting worse over time, but I haven’t studied the data.
Looking briefly I found some sources covering what it costs to throw one’s hat into the race…
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/are-the-very-rich-taking-over-american-politics/
… but it only covers modern elections. Ideally we’d have a data set going back several decades to analyze long term change. Right now I don’t know to what extent it’s always been this way or if political representation is statistically getting worse.
Alfman,
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but have you actually checked how easy it is to replace a commercial building with apartments?
(Zoning laws are one of the largest barriers against social mobility.
They physically lock people out)
I’m not worried about wealth “distribution” as other factors for two major reasons. Except when that “wealth” is housing stock, then I’m really worried.
The first reason is, it frankly does not affect me as a middle class person. The fact that Bezos has another yacht, or Elon blows up a rocket has much less effect on my wellbeing than a faceless bureaucrat here in the city hall.
(I’m having some roof issues that really affect me at the moment. Elon is not even in the picture. Though… to be fair they sell “solar roofs”, for $80k… I asked. So again obviously with that price he is not in the picture.)
The second reason is…. wealth “distribution” as they call it actually helps the middle class.
“But, but, but the middle class is shrinking”
That is true.
What happens is most of the middle class is moving up
Or at least we are trying to do. Whenever I manage to save a little, another issue related to housing or government keeps taking it away. It feels like running on a threadmill, or filling a leaky bucket. (Fortunately the bottom is not entirely off)
Anyway, I really care about middle class, as I’m in that right now (and have no delusions about being a “future billionaire”, … i wish)
But we need to identify the core problems in order to be able to make progress.
Andreas Reichel,
Yes, I know Alfman means well. But we seemed to be focused on different parts of the problem. (Obviously each one of us think that particular part is the larger issue)
sukru,
It was in response to your point about retail spaces specifically, which are already zoned appropriately.
We can agree over and over that housing is a problem, but it seems you are absolutely bent on ignoring any other factors contributing to the falling standard of living. To what end would you have us all turn a blind eye to the absolutely egregious transfer of wealth to the billionaires? What would they actually have to do for you to say “yeah, that’s excessive”?
That might make people at the top feel better about it, but it’s just not true. The workers have been suffering as a result of corporations taking an ever larger share of GDP and distributing it to owners instead of workers. They cut employee benefits. Then they go out and lobby legislators for tax bills that gut social programs to fund more corporate tax cuts. The battle against the working class hasn’t stopped.
I accept that greed makes people be assholes to other people, it’s human nature. But the gaslighting that this isn’t not happening or that it’s good for us. I don’t say this lightly but come on, what kind of idiots do you take us for?
I don’t think I’ve ever denied that housing is a problem for the middle class. Yes, I know housing’s a problem….but even so it’s one of many things holding us back. Yet you keep using housing to deflect from other problems. When we were discussing the unaffordability of healthcare you did the same thing. Housing housing housing housing…. The denial of other financial problems is frustrating.
Alfman,
I’m sorry it comes out that way. I might be focused primarily on the thing that affects me most, and causes most of my frustration.
Yes, healthcare is frustrating, too. But everything is relative.
Just now we received a bill for $590 plus change… for the yearly physical that was supposed to be free. You say one “wrong” sentence, they put in a different code. And all of a sudden it is no longer covered. It is like a interrogation where you have to be careful not to get overcharged.
And this happens every year. (Not the same amount of course). Multiplied by each family member. It really annoys me.
Yet… I have come to accept it.
I’m not sure this is a nice thing to say. I am trying to discuss the root causes of our economic issues in good faith.
I think this was the area we disagreed. Of course there are many factors, but when trying to “optimize” my solutions, I would look at the very largest cost and frustration that I have.
If I have a huge fever, and mild knee pain, which one would I take care first?
Sorry, I missed that part.
sukru,
Yeah, we got a $7k bill for an ER stay, also supposed to be “free”. But because of out-of-network bullshittery and insurance company saying tests performed by doctors during the ER stay were unnecessary and elective, they said not covered. They get tens of thousands of dollars to cover such emergencies and then when that time comes you still end up stressing about medical debt. It shouldn’t be that way, the insurance company’s whole job was to take care of that. It’s no wonder people hate them. Even when nothing bad happens, deductibles and co-pays can cost thousands on top of insurance premiums. It’s so much money. For us it costs more than rent. Anyway, just try to live and learn.
Yes, it wasn’t nice to say, and TBH I felt bad saying it to someone I enjoy the company of. But still, one can’t really discuss the root causes of our economic issues in good faith without acknowledging there are many hurdles responsible for middle class struggles. It’s frustrating to be told the financial problems we’re experiencing are not a problem. They hell they aren’t, haha.
I can appreciate that housing affects you the most personally. Maybe for households with an income of $200k, which is double the median for a household of two in california, it’s still affordable to buy a house there. (The median household income is from the link I posted earlier). Bills/medicine/utilities/food/clothing/cars etc may be relatively affordable at that income level. However those right in the economic middle are only taking home $50k individual/$102k dual incomes. Now you are playing with a lot less disposable income; purchases that the $200k household could easily afford break the bank for the $100k household.
It might not seem like much to high earners, but that additional $100k makes a huge difference for affordability. For people living at the median and below that’s a life changing amount of money. Personally if I had an additional $100k/yr, I would be able to finally buy a house, even at high prices.
Darn, I didn’t catch this in time.
Alfman,
We are way off topic here (or not? was it not about affordability), anyway…
True, I think it was $350k that was cited as the amount needed in San Francisco to comfortably own a home. (I don’t live there, but…) and this was pre-pandemic.
You will hear nothing positive about insurance companies form me, they are vultures.
That being said $7k? Those are rookie numbers 🙂 We got two bills that add up to about $14k (*) after our baby was born. “Those test were not medically necessary”, maybe, maybe not. But should you not have told this before?
Anyway… lost story short between the insurance company, the lab, and us… it took over one year, until they finally offered us $350. It was a fair price and we paid.
This is how they operate. Send out a completely made up number, and probe the insurance on what they will pay. Every now and then a bill goes through the cracks of coverage and becomes a “surprise”. Then… we had to spend one stressful year until they gave us the real price.
(I’m not sure whether this works every time, fortunately these are rare)
I know you might disagree, but I’d still say the largest contributor is housing.
Think how your life would change if your rent was cut buy half, or your mortgage if you bought. How much of a difference a (median) 15% boost to your income would do (or more likely 25%-30% to our actual “disposable” income)
For us… even though that bill would hurt, we would be able to pay it eventually. I would still object and not like it. But the difference is clear.
For an analogy…
Housing pain is like a chronic condition, cancer, diabetes, blood pressure. They take your energy constantly. They are always hurting in the background
Hospital bills are like those rare car crash. Violent, very hurtful, but happens much less. And you eventually recover from
===
* $14k it was somewhere between $13k and $15k I don’t exactly remember. So the middle.
===
And, please no hard feelings.
sukru,
Yes, although my point was that the ER visits were supposed to be covered.
Yes, fortunately rare. I’m glad it worked out well, albeit after much frustration.
In terms of disclosing prices, I don’t think the doctors themselves would know even if you had the wherewithal to ask, Their jobs have little to do with medical billing. And it’s not like patients should call up the heath insurance company before 911 to ask what they are approved for.
The dilemma for us now is that we can drive ourselves to an in network hospital, but during an emergency the 911 ambulance service only goes to the out of network hospital.
I continue to agree with the need for more housing. But can we stop going in circles with it? Yes housing expensive. For us it’s less than half of our expenses though. If we end up needing to buy a car like Thom’s situation, it would end up costing us more than rent for the year. Yes rent is a big cost…but please lets stop treating it as the only problem that needs to be fixed.
Many people living in the margins are one emergency away from a full personal economic collapse.
https://www.heraldnet.com/news/from-sick-to-the-streets-how-an-illness-left-a-stanwood-man-homeless/
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/09/11/1198534328/medical-debt-housing-security-homelessness
https://publichealthpost.org/health-equity/medical-debt-homelessness/
You keep using analogies, so I have one for you too….
A man has an accident at work in which he looses a foot, a finger, and the tip of his penis. 911 is called and he is taken to the hospital where he gets sedated. Upon waking up the man sees his injured leg is stitched up but his finger and penis are still bleeding a little. The doctors come in and say they treated the leg because it was bleeding the worst, but the finger and penis weren’t bleeding nearly as badly and so aren’t a big concern. They tell him not to worry about those other problems because the foot was the main thing.
Nah, I think we’re done with the topic anyway. If anything Thom’s probably the one annoyed we’ve hijacked his nice fundraising request for this.
Rich people don’t have much cash, they have assets.
This is the first thing that people should realize that you don’t need cash, you need productive assets. If you distribute the assets and you try to convert them to cash, the asset price disappears. It is called a market crash. Right now, rich people are in good position, their assets are inflated, the SNP500 ratio is 29. People easily forget that we had 2018, 2008, 2001 and all the other crashes. We will have more.
What we really need is more competition, less monopolies.
msgnr,
You’re right it’s not usually kept as cash in a bank account. They might own companies, buy a mansion, vacation houses, yachts, keep a large stock portfolio, etc.
Regardless of where they hold their wealth, it’s very likely they were making many times the median income to get there (assuming it wasn’t just inherited).
Indeed, it’s cyclic, although the booms more than make up for the busts.
I can’t disagree with that.
That is the only way we can make progress (look at history, all social progress is based on technical progress, which is based on competition to fulfill needs)
What people often miss is the rich and the rest of us are highly correlated, however from those crashes “rich will become richer”.
I had a friend who ran a business during 2007 housing crash. He just bought a bunch of houses with cash from depressed sellers.
He was a small time business owner. But “America’s Grandpa” and his cronies did this en masse.
The crash definitely hits the small guy, but it may or may not hit rich ones. Usually those in good positions become even richer.
In other words:
In the volatile pond big fish eat the small fishes.
So…
We should try to avoid artificially creating those crashes, IMHO.
just happens we have duplicated the world total population in the last 4 decades.
That also has to pay a toll.
bsdero,
That might be true. But that is mostly previously poorer countries catching up.
The population on developed countries don’t increase as fast, in many cases they “plateau”
(And the world population is also expected to flatten, which is actually an existential threat to human species. Long story though)
The only reason people don’t agree about what to do (pay people more – simple problems have simple solutions) is because we don’t have a real worker party, so no one with any power is willing to lead on this. But it really isn’t complicated. People don’t take home a large enough share of the wealth they produce. It’s not actually a complicated problem.
You have a point proven by a strong track record of socialist/communist experiments.
On a more serious note: Wealth distribution and salaries/welfare are NOT the same thing. I have absolutely no problem with Musk being a trillionaire because he really made that happen. Although I have a big problem with Gates being a billionaire because Microsoft literally stole that money from unfair practices and monopoly contracts with governments. (They are both very unpleasant people to avoid, but that’s a different story.)
Break concentration and punish monopolies and enable true capitalism with governments focusing on enforcing fair play and you will solve worlds problems (w/o plunging into power outages, food scarcity, labor camps and corruption).
Andreas Reichel,
Technically, many Musk businesses were heavily subsidized. That’s where a significant chunk of Musk’s wealth came from. I find it despicable that industry fought against EVs and green energy so vehemently, and thankfully Musk has done some good in changing this. However Tesla EV/charging/solar/SpaceX/starlink all benefited tremendously from government handouts. Look at how much Tesla are struggling today now that Trump admin are canceling many of the subsidies. Realistically Musks businesses could have been failures without them. Does Musk deserve to be a billionaire or trillionaire when public money was responsible for so much of his wealth? Personally I don’t think so. He’s never going to pay back the public’s investments into his companies.
This is one of my biggest gripes with the billionaire class. We (the non-wealthy) subsidize big business, we cut their taxes either by increasing the national debt or cutting social programs. They never pay it back, their wealth came at the price of burdening everyone else. Of course it’s not surprise that billionaires will take advantage of this, it’s really the corrupt politicians who are most guilty of failing to do their job.
Not doubt monopolies are bad. Breaking them up is hard to do though especially after the fact. Look at the debate going on with trying to separate parts of google. I think free markets need to protected sooner rather than waiting until the choices are gone because by then the damage is already happening.
The problem with Musk being a trillionaire, is multifaceted. But the big are are 1) it’s system breaking. A single billionaire, (while the median income is 50-80k, depending on region) is already system breaking – and it lead directly to trillionaire (and the constant “quantitative easing” that has produced so much extra money in the system.) But more importantly, 2) No he didn’t “make that happen” – not in any legitimate way. The only way to “make that happen” is to radically under pay everyone who actually produces all the wealth your company produces. It’s absurd to suggest he “make that happen” – what utter nonsense.
And “paying people more” has nothing to do with any ism. There have been socialisms, capitalisms, communisms, feudalisms, and on and on – all the different kinds of isms, that have built societies that have had periods where wages tracked productivity – going back 1000s of years, and each of them have had periods where wealth was extracted – wages don’t track productivity gains. It has absolutely nothing to do with any ism. See Cliodynamics and Peter Turchin (Secular cycles, and End Times, among other materials.)
I do agree that breaking up concentration can help mitigate these problems – however, you can’t do that and also have trillionaires (unless you bring up the bottom and the median – RADICALLY.) That makes no sense.
Alfman, technically, in capitalism, ALL business is heavily subsidized. This is what makes it capitalism. The other distinctions don’t really apply (unless what we have now isn’t actually capitalism, which is an argument I would accept.)
CaptainN-,
I’m not quite sure what you mean. Businesses like mine for example do not receive any government subsidies. A customer has to buy my services without any help from the government.. Not only does the government not subsidize my business, but they tax it at the full rate.
https://www.techspot.com/news/107584-big-tech-avoided-278-billion-corporate-tax-over.html
Tech giants that don’t pay their share are directly responsible for the ballooning deficit and cut in programs. It’s not just income tax either, apple/google/ms have been able to negotiate no local taxes for data centers as well. They can pull stunts like this because they pull a lot of strings, but normal businesses cannot. The taxes for everyone else may even have to go up to compensate.
We let them get away with so much and many have a lower tax rate than the working class who are struggling. It’s disgusting.
There are 2 sides to ever ledger. Businesses don’t get kick backs in the form of direct subsidies (except huge companies, they get plenty), but they get PLENTY of kick backs on the other side, through tax breaks, and tax gimmicks, and special arrangements for cheap money through various mechanisms – often including grants, which are direct subsidies. On top of that, every government regulatory body is meant to help businesses, including all the MASSIVE subsidies for colleges and other training grounds for your workers. You can find a MBA in 1 minute to help you scale your business, Businesses are well supported in capitalism. Compare that to something like a democratically oriented worker owned coop – there is almost no training for for that, no cheap money (finance) for that, tax gimmicks or loopholes for that, and what training there is, is not subsidized by any capitalist government.
The reason your business is taxed higher than Apple is not really a capitalism problem though – that’s just corruption, and it happens at the end of every civilization regardless of the ism, right before a collapse or reset, which the United States and it’s vassal states (Europe, Japan, etc.) are absolutely going through right now.
Andreas Reichel,
Do not worry, none of the past 40 or so devastating failures were not “actually socialism”. Even though all the intellectuals have praised them, had their vacations there, held pilgrimages, wrote books about them, none of them counts.
And if you ever try to bring one of their very own statements “it is considered crass and low effort”
Do not even mention USSR, Cuba, Enver Hojda, Pol Pot, North Korea, or Venezuela. Even though they were praised in the past… none of them counts.
(Yes all of these were heavily defended. Even Pol Pot, that measurably decreased the IQ of their country by about 20 points by killing every one who had schooling, was defended by those like Chomsky and other prominent figures)
Just like the natural experiments on UBI that we did during pandemic. No, the inflation was caused by greed, there is “absolutely no other explanation”
There is really no learning from any experiments, since the experiments were always inconclusive.
(“There is noone blinder than one who does not want to see”)
Sent along 100 euro. Good luck!
“ Sadly, and unexpectedly, we’ve had to scrap our car. Our 2007 Hyundai Santa Fe did not survive this Arctic Winter,”
You had a 20 year old car. And it was essentially a Kia. The only thing unexpected is that it lasted as long as it did.
Set up a monthly donation. I’ve been reading OSNews for more than twenty years now — it’s where I learned about QNX/Photon, Ximian Desktop, eComStation, and a thousand other projects besides. So this is long overdue.
I believe a monthly consistent contribution is better on the long run, too.
Yeah, I’ve been meaning to start contributing on Patreon but U$D 6.50 monthly is not doable for me right now, at least not as a long commitment.
(I’m actually a free member of OSNews Patreon account since October 2023).
@Thom, would you consider setting a lower cost (U$D 2/3) tier?
Money sent
I support this – and put money into it.
Hey, hope you do well with a ‘new’ car.
Might want to consider a used Toyota Corolla-based or RAV4 (RAF4?), built within a few years of 2010. If maintained properly (regular oil changes) they run forever.
I was going to comment exactly the same thing. A Toyota will run forever with basic maintenance. If you can find one, the Sienna minivan is also a great option because it is spacious and is all-wheel drive.
Can confirm. my 2014 Sienna had 85000Kms on it when I got it in 2019. It’s now at 343000.
I am not sure about the rationality of a 15 year SUV which sips gas like there is no tomorrow, especially with European gas prices.
Low income family car/SUV in Europe is more like Dacia Duster or Suzuki Vitara or Hyundai i20, something with a 1.3l or 1.5l engine. Honestly the Suzuki Swift and the Toyota Yaris are great family vehicles too, I was able to fit into the back of Swift in my teenage years. Another underappreciated car is the Renault Modus. From the electric side, around 8000, a Renault Zoe can be a good purchase for work too, if one can also charge that around town.
Why do I care if you use AI?
Good luck with the car! For € 10000 I hope you can find something good in the 125-150K kilometer range, though the Mazda 6 is a rare relatively rare car. Also I heard people advise to avoid the diesel, but I am sure you will do your research.
I always wanted a used Mazda 6, but I settled with a Mazda 3 because I found the dream deal a couple of years ago. Benzine, manual, 120HP base model without any camera, navigation and other fancy but to me useless things and the previous owner barely used it and it was just so much much cheaper than a Mazda 6. It carries 4 people comfortably around and it can keep the tempo on the autobahn. If I needed more space I would by a roof rack, but the trunk was always enough for us. We never carried baby carriage though.
Also there is the Mazda 5. It has probably more space than the 6 station wagon but way less sexy, and also way cheaper. I only rode in the 5 speed, according to my father it really needs a 6th for the highway. Oh and it has a sliding door which is fantastic. And 6 seats!! The problem is again, that it is rare and parts might need to be ordered from abroad. But actually if you look around the minivan market. People are idiots because they all went SUV. But this makes the rest of us lucky, because the minivans lose price fast yet they are increadible value.
You wrote: “Opting to forego a car entirely is sadly not an option either. With two small children, the Arctic climate, the remoteness, my wife’s stressful job and commute, and long distances to basic amenities, we can’t “go Dutch” and live off public transport and bicycles, no matter how much we’d want to. We have considered it, but it’s just not a realistic long-term solution. Had we lived in The Netherlands or in a big city, going carless would’ve possibly been a more realistic option.”
Northern Sweden isn’t Amsterdam, and distances and winters can make car-free living harder. But let’s be honest – describing car ownership as unavoidable is a position of privilege. Most people in the world don’t have the luxury of a private vehicle, and their lives are shaped within those limits.
Acknowledging that this is a lifestyle choice – rather than framing it as impossible to change – would make your position a lot more honest.
Also Thom, yesterday I didn’t read clearly your message, so I went over the fact that after the fundraiser you still need the loan.
I can’t know your needs and your financial plans, but going with a car loan is a huge commitment because it will tax you twice.
The first tax comes from the lost passive income and the second comes from the interest you pay. So as much as possible I would suggest you to reduce your exposure to car loans. Especially because cars also depreciate and they require maintenance so at the end of the day you pay interest for nothing.
My bank says they offer me 148 eur monthly payment for 5 year loan. I will pay back 5358. At the same I could invest in government bonts and even the first year I earn about 35 eur in taxed interest income. If I go for some Eastern European country, I can earn 71 euro the first year alone. But let’s keep the money in western bonds, I can earn about 366 in interest income in the period. So after 5 years you are 650 euros difference.
With cars I say reliability and repairability is the key so preferable no diesel, no turbo, benzine chain driven engine, the size and type does not matter that much until the engine has a good reputation. So on that sense the Mazda and the Volvo while the engines are good, they can be a bit more luxurious when it comes to repair. My friend says it is the Prius that’s great, he owns right now a Suzuki Swift now from 1997 and his Prius is at least 10 year old. My father has an 18 year old Zafira and a 17 year old Mazda 5 or did he buy when the car was 18 year old? For sure he spent around 3000 euro max on each. The other friend with 2 children uses a Mazda 3 from 2012. Before I turned to the Mazda, I was eying with the Honda Fits. That’s a bit more expensive than a Suzuki or a Dacia, but that is one cool car, very simple, big enough for 4 people and it is way cheaper than a Mazda 6 or a Volvo. I would suggest you to talk to an inspector, and they can advice on how to make the most out of your money. You need an inspector anyway before you buy a used car don’t you?
My personal history with cars come from growing up with the Wartburg 353, Lada 1200, Mazda 626 and Suzuki Swift. Except for the Suzuki all the other cars were used cars, and my family looked at the Lada 1500 as a high end vehicle (this in 1995) . The Mazda 626 was a dream car for us, 1998 we got one from 1984, I am not sure if we got that with the original engine or not, but we even had sun roof, the only time in my life, oh and we had electric windows. But of course it was like 15 years old and high milage and it required an engine replacement at one point. As an adult I dreamed to buy a Mazda 6 under 100.000km but I was not able to pull the trigger, I like money more than autos 😀 Though cars are very tempting to purchase and it also matters what the wife accepts as a tolerable vehicle not just my wishes.