upworthy

economics

Learning

In two sentences, finance guy crushes the idea of buying a new car. But people disagree.

Here's why people are still doing it.

via Canva/Photos

A woman gets the keys to her new car.

There are many reasons to be squeamish about spending money in today’s economy. Interest rates are high, trade wars may drive inflation, and financial experts say we may be headed for a recession. That comes after the post-COVID period, when the process of everyday necessities, such as rent and groceries, went sky-high.

There’s a lot of economic uncertainty out there, but that won’t stop some of us from needing a car. And, of course, those are getting more expensive, too. The average car cost $49,740 in January, nearly an all-time high. Part of that is inflation, but it’s also because Americans love buying nice cars, and more are choosing luxury models. So now, to purchase a new car at $49,740, with zero dollars down and a 5-year loan, would cost over $950 a month. That’s a lot of money for something that will only decrease in value.

Real estate expert and author of “Retire FIlthy Rich,“ Ravi Sharma, wasn’t shy about sharing his thoughts about buying a new car on TikTok. The post received over 1.2 million views.

"Controversial topic: That $50,000 car loan that you finally paid off after 5 years cost you $62,000 (due to interest). That car is now worth $20,000 due to depreciation. Losing $42,000 in 5 years would be seen as a bad investment, yet people are still buying new cars. Thoughts?"

@personalfinancewithravi

Controversial Topic - What’s your thoughts about this? 🤔 #personalfinancewithravi

Is it financially smart to buy a new car?

Sharma’s logic is hard to argue with. A car is a depreciating asset that will lose its value over time. In fact, according to Kelly Blue Book, the average new car loses 20% of its value after the first year. That number grows to over 60% after five years. So, why not buy a car that’s five years old, costs less money, and is significantly cheaper to insure?

Strangely, most people in the comments pushed back against Sharma’s logic. "You forgot to factor in the benefit of owning that vehicle and the pleasure of driving it. For most, it's priceless. Not everything in life is about making money," Patty wrote. "I have 3 bad investments and loving them. We only live once. Enjoy,” Rich added. Others noted that even though the car's value goes down, you got use out of the vehicle so it's not a total loss.

new car, finance, ravi sharmaA woman inspects her new car. via Canva/Photos

There were a few people who agreed with Sharma. "Yes! Car payments are one of the top wealth killers. I have always bought used and paid cash,” a commenter wrote. "Amen. I’ve never purchased a brand-new vehicle. If you want to be a millionaire, don’t live like one,” another added. "Just driving the new car off the lot depreciates it by 20-25%. Buying pre-owned, someone else took that depreciation. Don't believe me? Buy a $50k new car then try to sell it tomorrow,” a commenter wrote.

Many people pushed back against Sharma because buying a new vehicle gives them joy. But the real question is, how long does that last before it just becomes your everyday car and no longer has the wow factor it had when you drove it off the lot? Further, going back to our car that cost $49,740 and about $950 a month, what if you bought a car for half the price and invested the $475 a month of the payment in a sensible mutual fund? After 5 years at 6% of growth, that would amount to over $32,000.

new car, finance, ravi sharmaA woman gets the keys to her new car.via Canva/Photos

With the constantly rising cost of living, it’s good to consider what it really means to make a big purchase and whether the joy of something new is worth the loss that comes with spending versus investing. Ultimately, the decision comes down to one’s values and financial priorities. Is short-term satisfaction worth the long-term cost when opting for a used car means more financial freedom tomorrow?

From Your Site Articles
economics
Business

This Map Reveals The True Value Of $100 In Each State

Your purchasing power can swing by 30% from state to state.

Image by Tax Foundation.

Map represents the value of 100 dollars.

As the cost of living in large cities continues to rise, more and more people are realizing that the value of a dollar in the United States is a very relative concept. For decades, cost of living indices have sought to address and benchmark the inconsistencies in what money will buy, but they are often so specific as to prevent a holistic picture or the ability to "browse" the data based on geographic location.

The Tax Foundation addressed many of these shortcomings using the most recent (2015) Bureau of Economic Analysis data to provide a familiar map of the United States overlaid with the relative value of what $100 is "worth" in each state. Granted, going state-by-state still introduces a fair amount of "smoothing" into the process — $100 will go farther in Los Angeles than in Fresno, for instance — but it does provide insight into where the value lies.

The map may not subvert one's intuitive assumptions, but it nonetheless quantities and presents the cost of living by geography in a brilliantly simple way. For instance, if you're looking for a beach lifestyle but don't want to pay California prices, try Florida, which is about as close to "average" — in terms of purchasing power, anyway — as any state in the Union. If you happen to find yourself in a "Brewster's Millions"-type situation, head to Hawaii, D.C., or New York. You'll burn through your money in no time.

income, money, economics, national average

The Relative Value of $100 in a state.

Image by Tax Foundation.

If you're quite fond of your cash and would prefer to keep it, get to Mississippi, which boasts a 16.1% premium on your cash from the national average.

The Tax Foundation notes that if you're using this map for a practical purpose, bear in mind that incomes also tend to rise in similar fashion, so one could safely assume that wages in these states are roughly inverse to the purchasing power $100 represents.


This article originally appeared seven years ago.

From Your Site Articles
money
Joy

A struggling cook asked Gordon Ramsay a personal question, and he responded in an unexpected way.

This was totally surprising.

Image (Cropped) from Dave Pullig/Wikimedia Commons/Attribution 2.0 Generic.

Gordon Ramsay at play... work.


Gordon Ramsay is not exactly known for being nice.

Or patient.

Or nurturing.

On his competition show Hell's Kitchen, he belittles cooks who can't keep up. If people come to him with their problems, he berates them. If someone is struggling to get something right in the kitchen, he curses them out.

His whole TV persona is based on being the world's worst boss.

In 2015, Ramsay went on Reddit and allowed users to ask him any question they wanted.

So, when a fellow cook asked him a sincere, deeply personal question about what to do when you've hit a roadblock in your career, you could probably guess what was coming.

screenshot of Reddit post

How do you deal with it Ramsay?

Reddit

Indeed, I thought the guy was making a terrible mistake pouring his heart out to a chef as notoriously tough as Ramsay:

"My hopes and dreams are nowhere to be found as I scale and portion salmon after salmon, shelling pods after pods of broad beans.
...
Sometimes I look out the tiny window and I can see people walking around the streets, enjoying the sunlight, while I'm here, questioning my dedication to this art as I rotate stock in the cool room, getting frost bitten, but the fear of the chef stops me from stepping outside to warm up.
...
The closest thing to feeling any kind of joy I get is those rare moments when I walk through the dining room near the end of service to get some coffee for everyone, and there will be a few diners left, idly sampling those little petite fours that we've painstakingly ensured are all perfectly round, identical, and just plain delicious. Then, one of them will stop the conversation they're having with their company, look up from their food and say, 'Thank you, chef. This is delicious,' and making the previous 14-hours of sweat and tears kind of worthwhile.

My question is, how did you deal with it? How the fuck did you deal with all the bullshit, Gordon?”

But the way Ramsay responded? Totally amazing. And completely unexpected.

screenshot of Reddit post

That’s an amazing question.

Reddit

Turns out, real-life Gordon Ramsay? He actually can be a really kind, big-hearted dude.

He's sympathetic to the guy. Not just because he's a good person. But because he's been there.

Working in restaurants is a tough, tough business. As of 2012, the average salary for cooks was less than $23,000/year. Eleven years later, the salary hasn't improved much. In 2023, the average salary for a cook was $34, 320 a year. And those who are just starting out often have to work unglamorous, tedious jobs that no one else wants to do. Ramsay didn't have fancy culinary school training. He rose up through the ranks putting in long hours for low pay in kitchens all over the world. That's why he gets it.

Which brings up another point.

gif of woman scraping food off a plate

(Does this salad dressing have black pepper in it?? No tip for you!)

Diet Dieting GIF by Bobbi DeCarlo - from GIPHY.

When we go out to eat, we, as a culture, tend to behave...how should I put this?

Let's go with "not like perfect angels."

Of course, no one likes getting the wrong order. Or waiting a really long time for a meal. Or eating something that doesn't taste the way you expect it to.

But it's important to remember that the people behind the food, like Ramsay's anonymous letter-writer, might be working 14-hour days. Or they might be a recent immigrant who speaks limited English, trying to support a family thousands of miles away. And possibly making very little money. And sure, they screw up sometimes. But we all screw up at our jobs sometimes.

Because they, like the rest of us, are human beings.

Which is why saying...

"Thank you, chef. This is delicious."

Could mean everything to someone.


This article originally appeared ten years ago.

From Your Site Articles
Education

A story about two pairs of boots illustrates how rich people get richer in ways poor people can't

It’s got nothing to do with bootstraps.

Photo by Maxim Hopman on Unsplash

The Sam Vimes "Boots" Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness explains one way the rich get richer.

Any time conversations about wealth and poverty come up, people inevitably start talking about boots. The standard phrase that comes up is "pull yourself up by your bootstraps," which is usually shorthand for "work harder and don't ask for or expect help." (The fact that the phrase was originally used sarcastically because pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps is literally, physically impossible is rarely acknowledged, but c'est la vie.)

The idea that people who build wealth do so because they individually work harder than poor people is baked into the American consciousness and wrapped up in the ideal of the American dream. A different take on boots and building wealth, however, paints a more accurate picture of what it takes to get out of poverty.

Author Terry Pratchett is no longer with us, but his writing lives on and is occasionally shared on his official social media accounts. Recently, his Twitter page shared the "Sam Vimes 'Boots' Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness" from Pratchett's 1993 book "Men At Arms." This boots theory explains that one reason the rich are able to get richer is because they are able to spend less money.

If that sounds confusing, read on:

Pratchett wrote:

"The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet."

In other words, people who have the money to spend a little more upfront often end up spending less in the long run. A $50 pair of boots that last five years essentially cost you $10 a year. But if you can only afford $10 upfront for a pair of boots that last six months, that's what you buy—and you end up paying twice as much over a five-year period.

There are so many areas in which this principle applies when you're poor. Buying in bulk saves you money over the long run, but you have to be able to afford the bulk cost up front. A reliable car that doesn't require regular repairs will cost more than a beater, but if the beater is all you can afford, that's what you're stuck with. You'll likely spend the same or more over time than if you'd bought a newer/higher quality car, but without the capital (or the credit rating) to begin with, you don't have much choice.

People who can afford larger down payments pay lower interest rates, saving them money both immediately and in the long run. People who can afford to buy more can spend more with credit cards, pay off the balances, build up good credit and qualify for lower interest rate loans.

There are lots of good financial decisions and strategies one can utilize if one has the ability to build up some cash. But if you are living paycheck to paycheck, you can't.

Climbing the financial ladder requires getting to the bottom rung first. Those who started off anywhere on the ladder can make all kinds of pronouncements about how to climb it—good, sound advice that really does work if you're already on the ladder. But for people living in poverty, the bottom rung is just out of reach, and the walls you have to climb to get to it are slippery. It's expensive to be poor.

When people talk about how hard it is to climb out of poverty, this is a big part of what they mean. Ladder-climbing advice is useless if you can't actually get to the ladder. And yet, far too many people decry offering people assistance that might help them reach the ladder so they can start taking advantage of all that great financial advice. Why? Perhaps because they were born somewhere on the ladder—even if it was the bottom rung—and aren't aware that there are people for whom the ladder is out of reach. Or perhaps they're unaware of how expensive it is to be poor and how the costs of poverty keep people stuck in the pit. Hopefully, this theory will help more people understand and sympathize with the reality of being poor.

Money makes money, but having money also saves you money. The more money you have, the more wealth you're able to build not only because you have extra money to save, but also because you buy higher quality things that last, therefore spending less in the long run. (There's also the reality that the uber-wealthy will pay $5,000 for shoes they'll only wear a few times, but that's a whole other kind of boots story.)

Thanks, Terry Pratchett, for the simple explanation.


This story originally appeared two years ago.

From Your Site Articles
culture
Trending Stories