Car prices to rise due to tariffs and certain vehicles possibly ...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Where was all this talk about people not being able to afford everyday goods when the inflation was rampant because we were giving away billions to other countries?
Wasn't it a common rhetoric that we have to "tighten our belts"? And what exactly did we get for all that spending? Absolutely nothing.

Now we have at least a chance (a pretty good chance IMO) of getting something positive out of this short term pain, but people can't seem stomach this for some reason. Very interesting way of thinking :unsure:
It was a path to disaster
 
Where was all this talk about people not being able to afford everyday goods when the inflation was rampant because we were giving away billions to other countries?
Wasn't it a common rhetoric that we have to "tighten our belts"? And what exactly did we get for all that spending? Absolutely nothing.

Now we have at least a chance (a pretty good chance IMO) of getting something positive out of this short term pain, but people can't seem stomach this for some reason. Very interesting way of thinking :unsure:
People did say that. Everyone was concerned about costs with inflation. I'm not sure where you were at the time. This is tacking more on top of that problem already happening.
 
People did say that. Everyone was concerned about costs with inflation. I'm not sure where you were at the time. This is tacking more on top of that problem already happening.
Some people said that, majority were very much supportive of this with little concern about "people affording goods".

There was/is a fellow here that was looking for a "military duty" vehicle, few times in fact, on here and when I questioned his motives I got jumped by a bunch of people because how dare I question that "poor soldier".

I would say that BITOG crowd on average was probably less supportive of sending money overseas, but judging by the amount of blue and yellow flags in people's signatures or user icons, and the push back I got, I would say it was still a significant amount.
 
Some people said that, majority were very much supportive of this with little concern about "people affording goods".

There was/is a fellow here that was looking for a "military duty" vehicle, few times in fact, on here and when I questioned his motives I got jumped by a bunch of people because how dare I question that "poor soldier".

I would say that BITOG crowd on average was probably less supportive of sending money overseas, but judging by the amount of blue and yellow flags in people's signatures or user icons, and the push back I got, I would say it was still a significant amount.
I really don't want to drag this political, but there's a lot of misinformation about how we were helping Ukraine. We were mostly sending them outdated equipment that was going to cost a fortune to properly dismantle and recycle and if anything was doing the bare minimum we were required to do to fulfill our previous promises put out by other previous agreements to keep nuclear weapons out of the area.
 
Luckily I’m set to ride this out. I want a new truck, but don’t need one. My cars are a 2018, 2021 and a 2024. I just spent $100 at the grocery store and my cart was overflowing. Unfortunately that’s because my items were cases of water and toilet paper. Not due to low prices.
About the only thing I think I can actually point to in my neck of the woods would be the price of gasoline that has dropped steadily for the past couple of months.
I did notice 99% of the few items (food mostly) I picked up off the shelves at Walmart yesterday are more than double what they were just about one year ago. Why would that be? Of course the very first answer will be "extra shipping costs due to prices of fuel." I have no idea what the lag time is between ? say a can of soup price and the price of fuel going up or down but it sure seems that we, consumers are never on the good side of that stuff. It takes a split second for retailers to jack prices and then it almost takes an Act of GOD to lower that same can of soup price back down even a few cents no matter how fast or how low the fuel prices dropped. I see it more as unchecked greed driven when companies have learned they can get away with it as there is really no one to police them into doing the right things in regard to costs. ***PLEASE**** this is NOT political. Let us not make it.******This thread started out about vehicle prices I noticed. But many of us kept it going pretty long about many things. I am sorry I contributed to that and I will not comment on it off subject again***
 
Don't expect the gas prices to stay low . Summer blend is on the way . Usually available by end of April or early
May . That can add up to 15 additional cents .
 
Last edited:
I wonder sometimes how some do it. Was looking at rebuild kits when I realized FluidMaster had gone China - but these guys did not and still sold for less …
So, now it’s been years since buying FluidMaster

https://www.korky.com/
I replaced a flush valve with a Korky made in USA valve and it works better and only cost a few $$$ more than the Fluidmaster.
 
About "why XX million of able men and women are not working".

Because our society's economic policy is to target a certain number in unemployment. Keep it not too high (recession) and not too low (inflation). It is by designed to achieve a "greater good" based on some economic policy and human nature.

This is not US only, but in every single nation.
 
Gotta wonder the future of many foreign brands considerin Japanese manufacturers have been reducing inventory levels in the us to the lowest on record in the last couple months.

Toyota/Honda are restricting inventory allocations to 30 days within the us and appear to be actively sandbagging despite falling demand for many of their products. To keep inventory as light as possible. (No not everything Toyota makes is selling right now and yes Honda and Toyota historically could produce over double what they have delivered in the last month )

They sure do, but they must have a way of sustaining themselves. Either parents or tax payers. Cut off the tax dollar incentives, which we all know just perpetuate the laziness and these people will have to find a job.
https://economistwritingeveryday.com/2024/10/16/where-are-the-7-million-missing-men/

https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/capitolism/millions-of-missing-american-men-arent-really-missing/

https://phys.org/news/2024-02-myth-men-full-employment.amp

IMG_6521.webp
 
Last edited:
I like to post several perspectives including ones that actually try to do justice to extremely complex issues.

Many folks take a comment at face value when the reality is there are lies, dam lies, and then there is that 7 million number that’s been floating around almost 15 years.

Subtract the folks who retired early traveling, folks who only are only in the country part time or occasionally, charity worker/unpaid and all the snowballs chance of working outside the home folks and your left optimistically with 2 million folks out of the 7.

The idea that there are 7 million able bodied 25 year olds in their basement is wildly inaccurate as well
(considering there are only ~1.8 million total 25 year olds altogether) with most in that “non working” group being 55+ and many others 40+

Things like this are one of a multitude of Silly fantasies the US populace engages with .

Heck most probably don’t realize our population graph went vertical 20 years ago, and a graph like this is unsustainable and very very bad for a functioning society. At least nationwide is better than Florida. Which has <1% 25-29 year olds people present.

Sadly they didn’t provide the 2025 population estimates because the 2025 information now says there is a 2-1 ratio F to M in the 85+ bracket and basically a large chunk of the male population is hollowed out from the 40+ group of men compared to 2020. Too many younger men for the number of girls and very few older men for the number of older women.

IMG_6523.webp
IMG_6248.webp
 
Last edited:
The idea that there are 7 million able bodied 25 year olds in their basement is wildly inaccurate as well
(considering there are only ~1.8 million total 25 year olds altogether) with most in that “non working” group being 55+ and many others 40+

I think the "7 million" Mike Rowe was referring to was U.S. men between the ages of 25 and 55 of which I'd roughly estimate to number around 50 million, maybe a little more. It is quite plausible that 7 million of them are not working because they don't want to work.
 
Last edited:
I think the "7 million" Mike Rowe was referring to was U.S. men between the ages of 25 and 55 of which I'd roughly estimate to number around 50 million, maybe a little more. It is quite plausible that 7 million of them are not working because they don't want to work.

Nope not even close, there are not 50 million non-working men even if we count 0-18.

I think the reason this mythology above is believed is because people still think we have a population distribution like we did in the 1970’s

If you look at the distribution we have a vertical distribution which means an immense number of men that should be in the workforce are either dead or long retired . Aka estimates we have 166 million men of a 346 million population 2025 which is 7-10 million fewer men than expected that are missing from the population (deceased)

Reality is we only have 90.6 million working aged men in total 16-65
78 million of those men are considered as being employed full time (some individuals described as full time is being rather optimistic)
with another large group being part time.
Even 60% of the homeless are employed.

To get 50 million not working would include babies and retired.

Should 12 and 90 year olds be working?


The real problem is described in one of the articles I posted, many men since 1970 have experienced perpetual extreme job insecurity where they are constantly not being fired but being forced to change jobs more than annually their entire lives because their workplaces continuously fail or randomly downsize or they are stuck as lifetime contractors/gig workers.

This instability wreaks havoc on society and reduces efficiency. (Average job search takes 6 months thanks to AI improving it)
Today we are reaping what we sowed converting entire industries to at will contractors.
This instability wastes guys lives looking for work and makes it unlikely they will participate in the usual “American dream” stuff.
Also subtracts a good 20 years off their lifespan which makes it so there are even fewer working aged men. (Which has already happened)
 
Last edited:
Costco tire prices:
Michelin LTX A/T2 tires went up $20 for P rated, $30 for LT, and the discount is no anymore $90; it is $60, while for BF Goodrich, it is $30.
 
Costco tire prices:
Michelin LTX A/T2 tires went up $20 for P rated, $30 for LT, and the discount is no anymore $90; it is $60, while for BF Goodrich, it is $30.
Bummer because I will be needing new rubber on our M3P one of these days... What's a poor boy to do?
 
Last edited:
I think the "7 million" Mike Rowe was referring to was U.S. men between the ages of 25 and 55 of which I'd roughly estimate to number around 50 million, maybe a little more. It is quite plausible that 7 million of them are not working because they don't want to work.

Too many leaches refusing to work and get handouts.
 
Reality is we only have 90.6 million working aged men in total 16-65

So Mike Rowe said 7 million and we have 90.6 million working aged men. That's 7.726%. Factor in how they calculate unemployment (against only those who are actively seeking employment), they come up with something like 3.5-5%? Also don't forget realistically people at 16-18 are most likely in school, and 18-21 are very likely in college (say 50% of the populatin goes to college), etc. Factoring in many women who are working and many who are housewives, we are in a "stable employment" zone.

Yup, it is by design to achieve that amount to keep our economy stable between inflation and recession. When you get more people employed they will dampen the economy to create layoffs and when you get fewer people employed they will stimulate the economy to improve that number.

I would rather our country focus on how much productivity we can get out of each of us on average instead of how many people are "working" and producing negative productivity (need government subsidies to break even).
 
Yup, it is by design to achieve that amount to keep our economy stable between inflation and recession. When you get more people employed they will dampen the economy to create layoffs and when you get fewer people employed they will stimulate the economy to improve that number.

I would rather our country focus on how much productivity we can get out of each of us on average instead of how many people are "working" and producing negative productivity (need government subsidies to break even).
By design, your kidding I hope. Our great nation hasn't had a economic design in many decades. Was it by design to have the debt and deficits we have? Was it by design for our nation to be down the road to financial collapse by continuing to import more than our nation exports- which guarantees a nation will financially collapse.

The only major nation I see having a employment design is China. Maybe add India to the list. Zero design whatsoever in the U.S. except immediate profit to report to wall Street.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom