Today's headline: Auto repo rates soar.

Up 18% over last year,

Up 40% over 2 years ago.

Average payment for new car $720/mo.

Note: be sure to include their vehicle payments when calculating rent affordability.

Yep, just read an article with a sad anecdote about a lady who bought on 2019 car on payments, then a week later she got injured and couldn't work. The story noted she had many chances to sell the car to recoup most of what she had in it (including a $7000 down payment), but she decided to keep it.

She said it was "not fair" that they were going to repo her car.

*sigh

The first two cars I owned drove cost less than half her down payment.

Paulio, thank you for that fresh angle. I have beat the bushes strictly looking for people loosing homes. Building on your post, it would stand to reason though if someone is loosing a car, that a house would not be that far behind.

I like be making a couple of calls next week to see the best way to help the bank and the delinquent. I would suspect that the bank is going to be hesitate to share this type of info. Is there a best technique to broach the topic?

Thats the price of dampening inflation.

Commerce decreases, people lose jobs, can't manage both food & rent & car payments, for such people, something HAS to give.

The fED is carefully watching inflation figures to try to minimize the pain, but inflation HAS TO BE STOPPED and there are only a few choices. They'll be meeting again next week to decide on their next move, but I suspect that many members already have their mind made up.

It is a sign for sure ... those with multiple vehicles you would THINK that they would figure out to sell or get rid of them (if they can) ... at least one and then figure out a way to make 1 work for the family to get where they need to.

I "understand" where they are thinking "I need the car to get to work and work pays the rent/mortgage, etc" but then they still have all of these "little things" they just keep doing that uses up their money... they stop at the fast food instead of the grocery store because "it's cheaper" and/or easier... but not thinking that spending the same amount or a little more on the right food at the store will give them more meals.

Netflix, hulu, peacock, whatever streaming services they have... they "cut the cord" on cable but paying all of these other services... they always seem to have the newest phones but the service itself is "pay as you go" and they are always out of minutes.

It's a different mentality for sure. When I was single and I needed to move closer to my work (which was about an hour and a half away from where I was living) I still couldn't really afford anything. I had a car payment, food, rent... I found a place that had electricity, water and heat included and was about 5 minutes from work. I made the choice to not get cable because it was either that or a phone (before cell phones or at the beginning when they weren't cheap or popular) so I opted for the phone so I could call work or they could call me, I could call my friends, parents, etc.

I then also found a second job as a bartender and worked all the weekends and any time they would... I was working a full time job (40+ hours a week) AND working about another 27ish hours at the bar (I picked up cleaning after shift so I could make more money). I was making hand over fist in money and started paying EVERYTHING off (after a light splurge because "why not").

People don't do that any more. They want someone to GIVE them the money or education or housing because they think it's a right. If whatever it is (car, apartment, house, etc) is taken away it's never their fault ... it's the landlords or the banks or the cops who set them out or whoever ... never theirs.

"People don't do that any more. They want someone to GIVE them the money or education or housing because they think it's a right. If whatever it is (car, apartment, house, etc) is taken away it's never their fault ... it's the landlords or the banks or the cops who set them out or whoever ..."

What do you know about what 'people' do, these days.

If you lose your job, unexpectedly, and don't have savings, what will happen? This is April, 2023 and layoffs have been going on since the beginning of the year, and there are more to come. People with lesser education don't really know about monetary policy, inflation, deflation, depressed economy vs recession. All they know is that they got laid-off, and no one else is hiring. If they don't make their car payments, the car will be repossessed.

Trump's economics brought us a spurt of prosperity that greediness couldn't sustain. Biden's economics concentrated on social programming instead of fixing Trump's complete lack of planning. The country is so bifurcated that no group can get ANYTHING done. The Chinese are saying that Democracy doesn't work, and they are at least partially right.

Few people are looking for handouts. What the country needs is a solid economic program that takes into account a future where America can grow and prosper. The economists know how to do that, but there aren't any leaders in sight who are willing to lead in that direction.

"Few people are looking for handouts"

I'll ask your question back to you, what do you know about what 'people' are looking for, these days.

You might pay more attention to what the Chinese are actually saying, rather than the names: They're saying that our system, with free speech, freedom of choice, concentration on oneself, isn't working, and they are at least partially right.

Chinese culture emphasizes the good of society over individualism, and that justifies harsh measures when the good of society requires it. Their proof is the rate of advancement of their society over that of the US, our inability to deal with important problems, and the basic decadence of life in our society.

Are they only partially right, or are they wholly right? That their system works and ours doesn't? Frankly, the whole world is watching, just as it did after 1945, when America was thought to be the standard of excellence. The matter really deserves some thought.

Kevin/Scott, here in militantly pro tenant NYS we aren't allowed you screen based on evictions or any litigation work prior LANDLORDS. Not sure if you can ask about bankruptcy but I do.

I've added the questions:

What is your total monthly payment for ALL vehicles (auto, truck, motorcycle, boat, recrestional vehicles, etc.)?

Have you ever had a vehicle repossessed?

Have you ever had any rented appliances/equipment removed for non-payment?

Over 21% of the population is receiving government subsidies.

"few people are looking for handouts"

Really? I guess where you are the tenant pool must be great. I'm chatting it up with prospective tenants that come right out and tell me "I only work up to a certain amount of time because if I make too much money from my job then I get less money from the County (or whatever program they are in)".

Those are the ones that actually work.

Others I've spoken to say things like "County will pay UP TO $XXX and I'll make up the rest" yet they state they have no income/job, etc.

I ask "so what is that income amount and what is it from"?

Their response typically is "I do side jobs" ... I ask "is it legal income... do you pay taxes on it or is it just cash in your pocket?"

So yeah... people are looking for handouts and they are getting more than they should because they are not only getting "help" from the gov't but they are also getting paid cash for things and not reporting it.

"Chinese culture emphasizes the good of society over individualism, and that justifies harsh measures when the good of society requires it. "

If you look around, it's easy to see one harsh measure that american society embraces that tramples on individualism: zoning laws. One would think those who value property rights would oppose the government dictating what a property owner can build on their own land.

Its an affront to others property rights to dictate what they can build on their property

We still have more jobs than people to fill them.

Work requirements were suspended during the Covid fiasco. They still have not been lifted. Of course it is MUCH easier to be a government pet than become self supporting, especially under the current regime. You have to look at the labor PARTICIPATION rates.

21% government subsidies.

I collect Social Security.

My health insurance bills Medicare before they send me any bill.

When I was a graduate student at Chicago, I was supported by The Israeli Defense Force via a grant from the Rome Air Defense Center (now USAF Research Laboratory).

So I'm one of the 21% that is "too much" for Oregon Woodsmoke.

I think it all paid off for the citizens of the US.

You should do a little research Moshe. that 21% was people who received benefits in the last 12 months, not lifetime. It also excludes Social Security which is an earned not a government subsidy.

I find it interesting that you continually identify and push the agenda of the left which wishes to subsidize a majority of the population with handouts but then commend the Chinese system which minimizes living conditions to almost inhumane standards for the majority of their citizens.

Brad, Thanks for sharing this indicator on the economy. Auto repos up 40% over 2 years ago!!

I replied to Oregon Woodsmoke’s research.

Lets try a little more recent example. My own experience as a graduate student is an example: I was a foreigner, never even been in the US. I was well able to work, had a good job working for the Army, I was able to give up my job in favor of feathering my own nest and interests, I was persuaded to let myself be supported by the US Government for a few years. The amount I was paid by the US Government was far beyond what I could have made in the Old Country, and gave me a vastly superior standard of living. But it served the US Public Policy, too.

The US has lots of Public Policies: Preventing public starvation (even malnutrition) , public health care, homelessness, level of employment, conditions for commerce, all serious and important.

But that experience was in my lifetime, long before last year. My granddaughter is a more timely example. She graduated from college last spring, spent last year working for the University as a Research Associate at a pretty good salary. She is well able to support herself: She has an A.B. from a distinguished university; she has a year’s experience in her field, working at an advanced level; she has published 2 papers, with a third paper almost ready to be sent for publication. She could easily continue at her RA job which she found interesting and remunerative, but she is quitting to move on to something else, also interesting but not gainful employment. She has accepted an offer to enroll in a PhD program at another top-ten university back East. She will be supported by an NIH grant covering tuition ($64,773 per year for up to 6 years = $388,638 if she uses all 6 years) plus an annual stipend of $36,600 ($219,600 for 6 years, if stipend doesn’t increase over 6 years) totaling $608,238, not to mention what the university rips off for administration of the grant, office space for subsidized students, computer time and laboratory space and maintenance, but all government subsidy for not working over the next 6 years as the able-bodied and already-trained (at government expense) healthy 22-year-old that she is. Her parents can afford to pay for her, and Grandpa would gladly help her, if she needed it.

Of course, the subsidy serves the US public policy, too, just like health care & Medicare, homeless abatement, child care, nutrition, auto safety, clean air and water, emergency relief, etc.

I know what you are getting at: you would like to see everyone employed and working, so that your government won’t be paying money to anyone who doesn’t work for their own living. But you are forgetting that there are LOTS of people who CANNOT work, including seniors, disabled workers, untrained workers, mentally-challenged workers, discharged workers with bad references, and just plain incompetents. But those that you want to discard are people who need the help, and the government is obliged to give them that help.

Your concern is not a conflict of Liberals vs Conservatives at all, but a problem of developing effective programs that do what the government needs done, with minimum waste. I see from your writings that you are not experienced in program development or management. It’s a hard accomplishment. It requires competence in management, in subject-at-hand, in politics and just plain administrative competency, and even with that, there may not be any solution. It does NOT require a Liberal or Conservative attitude.

"But you are forgetting that there are LOTS of people who CANNOT work"

But you are forgetting that there are LOTS more people who can work but because of liberal policy are allowed to live off of government handouts rather than suffer the consequences of their laziness, that continues to be my point and you are still side stepping it. Your granddaughters example is in the minority, in fact I do not believe grants are considered in the 21% because there is value being exchanged. The 21% is the percent of the US population that is receiving food, housing, or other subsidies that have not been earned, truely a benevolence. Perhaps the difference between us is the level at which we believe people can not work. One in five people receiving subsidies is ridiculously high compared to other developed countries. I would be happy with the Swiss number at 3.1%, or Finland at 8.2% those are more in line with the number of people who can not work not 21%. I don't want to discard anyone. I simply want a more realistic view of who actually needs help. In this regard it IS a disagreement of liberal VS conservative. Liberals are liberal with their handouts, conservatives are conservative with their handouts. China is definitely on the far conservative side of this equation, to the point of discarding people, which is why they are beating our tail by being so much more efficient with their monetary investment.

Thanks to the posters for this interesting debate.

What popped into my head was: "the poor will always be with us".