To the Editor:
Re “Where Did All the Affordable Cars Go?,” by Clifford Winston (Opinion guest essay, April 19):
Mr. Winston correctly identifies a pressing affordability issue shaping our economy: the lopsided pricing of cars that suburban and rural residents rely on in their daily lives.
However, he did not address a key factor in these accelerating costs: increasingly complex federal and state government regulations for safety, fuel economy and the like that made production of even base model cars much more expensive.
Paired with outsize consumer expectations for comfort, performance and integrated technology, modern automotive choices are safer, sip less fuel and perform far better than what was produced in the 1970s and ’80s, but all of these advancements have come at a steep cost.
The majority of Americans rely on their cars for their day-to-day needs, but it seems that domestic automakers will likely be introducing relatively affordable models in the coming years as market forces press them to do so.
Richard Murdocco Commack, N.Y. The writer is an adjunct professor of urban planning and environmental policy at Stony Brook University.
To the Editor:
Clifford Winston’s essay about the affordability of cars in America sounds compassionate, but it is deeply naïve and strategically dangerous. Most important, it misdiagnoses the problem.
The disappearance of cheap cars is not mainly because of tariffs; it reflects consumer demand, safety standards and the cost of integrating modern technology.
Today’s vehicles are far safer, cleaner and more durable than 1970s econoboxes. Comparing prices across eras without accounting for that is misleading.
More troubling is the call to open the U.S. market to Chinese automakers. These companies do not compete in a true free market; they are heavily subsidized, protected at home and backed by state industrial policy.
Allowing them in is not free trade; it is unilateral disarmament. We have already watched China hollow out American industries like steel and solar using this exact playbook.
The idea that we can require Chinese companies to build in the United States and avoid subsidies is wishful thinking. Those subsidies are often hidden and systemic. At the same time, this would hand China influence over critical supply chains — especially for batteries and vehicle software — based on little more than promises about data security.
The consequences would not stop at America. Canada and Europe would be forced to follow or be undercut, accelerating the collapse of Western manufacturing.
Yes, affordability matters. But sacrificing industrial strength and economic independence for slightly cheaper cars is a bad trade. This proposal doesn’t solve the problem — it repeats the mistakes that created it.
Kenneth Margulies Sterling, Va.
To the Editor:
Clifford Winston clearly illustrates the problem of affordability in the automobile market and offers a solution by lifting foreign import restrictions for reliable, affordable cars. But he does not discuss a larger problem: America’s reliance on the automobile and its failure to provide reliable alternative transportation where it is needed.
Few American cities boast a robust and reliable transit system, but those that do are able to connect suburbs, neighborhoods and metro hubs with effective commuter rail, rapid bus systems, subway systems and light rail. These systems offer people of all economic classes transportation options beyond the personal vehicle. They also allow people to find relief from the rising costs of auto insurance and maintenance.
Mass transit may not be feasible for all American communities, particularly those that are rural. However, many dense American cities fall far behind comparable international cities when it comes to transit and transportation infrastructure.
America needs to remove the social stigma of riding public transit and stop valorizing the status of car ownership. True independence and a free market would offer people transportation options beyond the personal car.
David Shum Salt Lake City
To the Editor:
I respect the credentials and opinions of Clifford Winston very highly. But I disagree with his argument in some respects.
Having spent 50 years working on the manufacturer’s side of the industry, I understand how the car business operates at both the wholesale and retail levels.
Based on my experience, the opposite is true. We constantly competed for every customer and every point of market share. We never ignored any segment that made sense; if customers were there, we aimed to serve them. As an industry, we stopped producing econoboxes because consumers no longer wanted them.
I must note that affordable cars are available in every town across America. We call them used cars. They have also become more expensive, though the used car market remains one of the last truly free markets in the economy, driven purely by supply and demand.
Customers who can’t afford new cars should consider used ones, which are readily available at rental company lots, where they can find affordable — if sometimes lower-quality — vehicles. In my opinion, the so-called affordability crisis arises because most people prefer new, high-end cars over inexpensive, far less prestigious used ones.
I believe that the core of the affordability issue is simply that car companies are in business to sell cars. There has not been a discernible market for stripped down economy models for years. When there is, the manufacturers will surely seek to fulfill that demand.
Joseph S. Folz Bonita Springs, Fla. The writer is a retired vice president and general counsel for Porsche Cars North America who has worked for General Motors, Volkswagen and Audi.
To the Editor:
Clifford Winston’s piece on the death of affordable cars is excellent and hits home.
I have always prided myself on purchasing smart, affordable performance sedans. I was a loyalist of G.M.’s now-defunct Pontiac division for that reason. When Alfred Sloan created the juggernaut that is G.M., he was said to have devised an upward-mobility brand strategy: Chevrolet was the affordable, entry-level brand, progressing up the ladder through Pontiac, Buick and Oldsmobile, to the pinnacle, Cadillac. Today, the average price of a new Chevrolet is approximately $47,000.
As a banker who 20 years ago worked in China supporting the global auto industry, I believe that Ford’s chief executive is right to consider a partnership with Chinese automakers — but on terms similar to what China imposed on foreign makers.
China should be congratulated for its growth; it recognized early that electric vehicles were an opportunity to leapfrog the rest of the world. We must now look to its technology to make our lives in the United States better.
Mr. Winston also correctly pointed out how car ownership has flipped from a sense of pride to a sense of burden. At one point, buying your first car increased your sense of freedom, dignity and self-worth. Collectively, cars were a part of true Americana.
That pride evolved generationally — from the “Smokey and the Bandit” V-8 Trans Am in the heart of the South to “Fast and the Furious” cars that celebrated the L.A. tuner scene. We loved our cars.
Now the only thing that is fast is how quickly your paycheck leaves your account to make your car payment and how furious that makes you feel.
Eric Planey New Hamburg, N.Y.
The post The Lost Ideal of the American Car Market appeared first on New York Times.
