Sales data from certain automakers is starting to roll in this week, and there’s already a little interesting news in the numbers I’ve already got. Kia outsold Hyundai again, and it did so by a rather large margin. What’s going on here?
This might be another Morning Dump where I use the term “k-shaped economy” to describe who is and who isn’t buying cars, because it’s starting to show up in the numbers. Tesla is hoping to lure buyers with yet another lower-level trim name, which reminds me of Toyota in the ’80s.
And, finally, China is tackling crappy electronic door handles. Finally!
Vans And Sedans Are Back, Baby!
I don’t want to overstate how big a deal it is that Hyundai lost a month of sales to Kia. Both brands are owned by the same parent company, and both had record Januarys. It’s good news all around. Also, this happens sometimes. Hyundai outsold Kia for the full year 2025 and, probably, will do so again this year.
What’s interesting about these sales numbers is that Hyundai and Kia share platforms and have almost entirely overlapping offerings, so there are some interesting assumptions to be made from the differences between the two brands.
The one I’ve mentioned before is that Hyundai sells the Santa Cruz, a small pickup truck, which it’s getting rid of after one generation. Kia, instead, sells an excellent minivan, and that minivan outsold the little trucklet nearly 5-to-1. The Carnival is also available as a hybrid, whereas the Santa Cruz has only been an ICE vehicle.
Hybrids have been doing well for both brands, as CEO Randy Parker noted:
“Hybrid demand was the star of the month, up more than 60%, showing just how strongly customers are embracing the strength, efficiency and advanced technology of our electrified lineup. This momentum gives us a powerful springboard into 2026 as we continue to expand choice and deliver the vehicles customers want most.”
That’s one of the differences, but there’s a more interesting one for me, which is that Kia’s new K4 outsells the Hyundai Elantra, 11,642 to 9,091. Even more fascinating to me is the fact that Kia moved 6,276 K5s versus 3,140 Sonatas.
Sedans! Affordable and attractive sedans! Again, this is only one month of data, and it’s possible that Kia dealers have more incentives or are being more aggressive in targeting buyers with bad credit. Or maybe it’s a trend. It’s something I’m going to be watching this year.
Only About A Third Of New Car Buyers Make Under $100,000
This is a continuation of yesterday’s TMD, which launched a lot of healthy debate over the new car market. With owners keeping cars longer, is it necessarily a surprise or even a bad thing that new cars have gotten so expensive? If someone who has an average income is able to keep a car running longer and avoid a car payment, is that necessarily a bad thing? Or, conversely, is it bad that someone making an average income can’t afford a new car every four years?
CNBC has some data this morning that won’t answer those questions, but can at least show the difference in markets:
“We have a different vehicle buyer today than we had just a few years ago,” Cox Automotive senior economist Charlie Chesbrough said Thursday during an auto analyst event. “The key takeaway here is that we’re seeing the average buyer here is much more affluent.”
Cox reports that the share of new-car buyers with incomes of less than $100,000 has dropped from 50% in 2020 to 37% last year, representing millions of lost sales. On the other end of the spectrum, the share of buyers with incomes of more than $200,000 has grown from 18% to 29% during that timeframe.
I think this represents an opportunity for some automaker, though I’m not sure who that automaker is at the moment.
Tesla’s New Cheapest Model Y Is Just Called The…
Tesla finally showed its de-contented Model Y and Model 3 late last year, and the company called these cars the Standard model. You know, the ones where they covered the glass roofs. That naming convention has been dropped, and now the Model Y is just the Rear-Wheel Drive or All-Wheel Drive. Credit to InsideEVs for noticing this:
The newly introduced Tesla Model Y All-Wheel Drive starts from $43,630 and has an EPA-estimated range of 294 miles on a full charge, making it the shortest-range Model Y in the lineup. Price-wise, it’s $2,000 more expensive than the base rear-wheel drive model with 321 miles of range, but $3,000 less than the Model Y Premium RWD. Compared to the Premium AWD, it’s $7,000 more affordable.
Nothing is changing, although this sort of reminds me of the way Japanese brands used to name vehicles. Remember when Toyota sold the Toyota Van and Toyota Truck? Tesla has been taking it in the shorts in California, but the governor of that state has launched a new EV tax credit there that could help them.
China Bans The Stupid Doors
There’s rarely universal agreement on a topic here at The Autopian, as we all have our own tastes and biases. One subject where there is, I believe, unanimous agreement is that there’s a style of motorized door handle that’s stupidly dangerous.
It’s been expected that China would follow through with its threat to ban them, and it sounds like it’s finally happening.
All car doors must include a mechanical release function for handles, except for the tailgate, according to details released by China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology on Monday.
Officials said the policy aims to address safety concerns after fatal EV accidents where electronic doors reportedly failed to operate and trapped passengers inside vehicles.
The new requirement will take effect on Jan. 1, 2027. For car models that were already approved, carmakers will have until Jan. 1, 2029, to make design changes to match the regulations.
I hope regulators here will do the same.
What I’m Listening To While Writing TMD
If you can believe it, it was 50 years ago this week that Paul Simon’s “50 Ways To Leave Your Lover” was at the top of the Billboard 100 charts.
The Big Question
Looking at the current mix of cars from the Korean automakers (Kia, Hyundai, Genesis), what would you buy? If you’re in England, you can also get a Musso or whatever.
Top photo: Kia
After the way Hyundai handled the whole ignition switch deal, the shady used car lot-vibe of their dealership, and the atrocious resale, I can’t honestly say that I would ever buy a new car from them or Kia. The only things they have that semi-appeal to me are the Ioniq N and a base model Palisade.
I too still have Hyundai/Kia on “suspension” for another couple of years.
This is a similar thing we do with restaurants. When we have a bad experience, we’ll say “Downtown City Tavern is on a 6 month suspension” as an example. It’s arbitrary, but it’s also sort of fun.
I’ll only remove them from suspension if they build something that absolutely blows me clean away, or at the very least revamp their dealership model, but that has yet to happen.
I’d have to imagine a number of Kia dealers are going to have to improve… right? They’re trying to sell 55k Telurides at this point. Upper-middle class moms aren’t going to deal with “we lost your keys” or the “we don’t accept outside financing” or the classic only talk to the husband tactic. I’d imagine there’s some pressure internally to ditch the slicked-back hair and sloppy steaks sales lifestyle for like, you know, sort of respecting your customers.
This is actually how the Kia/Hyundai brands drove my wife away. Right into the arms of Subaru cultism. Thanks guys.
There’s a Kia by me that has a used BMW on it’s lot that I’ve been eyeing.
IT’S A TRAP!
That’s the automotive equivalent of those bizarre deep sea fish with massive teeth who have those little light-up lures.
Ha! Anglerfish.
This is probably a sign that used car prices will continue to climb.
And that’s not a good sign.
I’d buy a Santa Cruz and hope for a markdown.
I preferred Simon’ lesser known song on that album “50 Ways to Love Your Lever,” which about something entirely different.
I remember that tune from the Pump Friction soundtrack
People want what they want, not what they need. It’s the American way. So yeah even though it’s financially prudent it’s not a “good thing” for most.
I would think that Kia should beat Hyundai at this point. Their designs are nicer, and also, newer. I mean, compare the Elantra to the K4 and the Sonata to the K5. I know what brand I would choose.
Yeah, Kia’s whole thing has been making better looking cars than Hyundai on the same platforms and usually selling them for slightly less, its weird this didn’t happen sooner
Hyundai definitely managed to create a modest amount of loyalty from some decent products in the 00’s and 10’s that Kia simply didn’t. I also think that though Hyundai dealers certainly aren’t approaching Lexus levels of experience, it seems like Hyundai has far fewer “holy shit don’t go in that place” dealers than Kia does. Or at least that’s the perception around here.
But yeah, overall, the Kia designs are simply nicer. If Hyundai doesn’t start to have a little more success with their designs, 5-10 years down the road we might be asking what the point of Hyundai is.
It’s interesting that they can run the two brands at the same basic price point with overlapping platforms out of two separate dealer showrooms and still be this successful. GM wants that again.
The K4 and K5 are horrible design nightmares for me, but it’s resonating with some demographic because I’m seeing A LOT of K4s on the road now. The Elantra and Sonata are equally overstyled but I don’t mind their looks. Which might mean H/K is doing something right–offer two distinct styles of the same basic car and cast a wider net.
Genesis is appealing for their styling language and interior quality. I compared a G70 with a Stinger a few years ago; the G70 felt and drove like a luxury sports sedan while the Stinger felt pretty cheap.
Part of it is that they are still legally two separate, independent companies that are just in a really, really closely intertwined alliance, Hyundai owns like 39% of Kia and is by far the largest stockholder, but the company’s shares still trade publicly
Basically the rich get richer and the poors need to get over it is what I’m hearing.
Though true, your description of the Santa Cruz as a “little trucklet” adds to the belief that your “less than” if you don’t buy/own a huge monster truck.
I too think trucklet is demeaning.
That being said the Santa Cruz and Maverick are not Trucks.
Ute, Pickup, etc. apply to them, but short of wheels armored pickups where the armor is part of the structure making them a unibody, unibody vehicles with pickup beds are not trucks.
When we’re splitting hairs between SUV/CUV, I’m not upset that someone lumps a Honda Ridgeline in next to a Toyota Tacoma as a “truck”. Especially that GM’s BT1 plaftorm is sitting in the grey as a skateboard.
But “Trucklet” is intentionally demeaning by the author.
Yes we are nearing the “let them eat cake” if they cannot afford to maintain a used car or need public transportation stage.
I empathize with you but have found the crowd that gets in a bind over about what is and isn’t a “truck” is never going to accept unibody pickups as trucks anyway. There are still plenty who don’t even count the Chevy Avalanche as one despite being body-on-frame, if they’re even aware of that fact.
And you thought Neanderthals were extinct.
It all hinges on what the definition of “is” is.
Diesel V8 single cab 4×4 dually with 8-foot bed under $20,000 with no power accessories and made with only American materials, parts, and labor.
That’s what Facebook comment sections seem to qualify as a real truck, anyway.
Cox reports that the share of new-car buyers with incomes of less than $100,000 has dropped from 50% in 2020 to 37% last year, representing millions of lost sales. On the other end of the spectrum, the share of buyers with incomes of more than $200,000 has grown from 18% to 29% during that timeframe.
Are we talking household incomes or individual incomes?
Either way, here’s what the interwebs is telling me:
From Yahoo Finance:
And what percentage of Americans earn >$200k/year? From CNBC:
That…is all long term bad news for the multiple segments of the economy. The instability those wage consequences will instill upon the population will begin to drop this country to third world status in another generation.
FTFY
Genesis, then Kia, then Hyundai. the Sonata has gotten it’s groove back from the sucker fish designs of only a few years ago, but the K5 still has some of the old Kia grill and looks downright sporty. The Telluride front end is not as attractive to me these days, but it is not as drastic or obnoxious as the Palisade Snout.
Question is, are the Korean Made GM products better or worse with regard to sales increases and overall design and build quality? I thought the Trailblazer was a Mexico built thing, but Bupyeong makes it, the Encore and the Envista and sends them our way. And I wonder how that works out at the union hall meeting if someone drives up in one.
I still firmly believe the only truly reasonable way to measure change of value over time is with reference to average number of hours worked to purchase a good. Pick a cohort, use their average pay at the two different times being reviewed, how many hours to purchase the good. If hours goes up, then the value of pay went down. If hours go down, then the value of pay went up. That simple, no arguments over inflation or wage growth etc.
Given my normal use patterns (tons of miles, keep it long-term and drive it nto the ground), I’d say a G80 or G90? At least one of these has a chance of ‘lasting’, design-wise. Hopefully the long-term reliability of the Genesis lines is better than the rest of H/K’s stuff… I have always liked the sedan form factor of the Ioniq 6 and dig the aero of the car, but given the reliability issues of their EV lines (and EVs in general), an EV is something to lease and send back when finished like a hot potato… but back to my use patterns–I’m so not a lease candidate. Ever.
Paul Simon’s “Still Crazy…” one of the greats, all the way through. I’ve had a copy of it on vinyl since I was a teenager, so out it came this morning for a spin on the turntable while working at home. Thanks, Matt!
Direct injection without a port injector to clean valves is perhaps the biggest concern I have, but this is the same with many Direct injection motors these days.
Fuel choice and quality help to a degree. Otherwise, the one car here with direct injection is used hard enough (lots of highway driving, very little stop and go) that I’ve not had issues so far.
Steve Gadd on the drums…not a bad start to the day.
Hopefully the US follows suit on the dumb hidden door handle I get it for efficiency purposes but not for practical, reliability and safety reasons.
I love the Genesis GV70. The interior is fantastic and looks like it came from a much more expensive car. Unfortunately most of their cars run turbo motors that don’t get great mileage and require premium fuel. I feel like that would bother me after a while just to push the thing down the interstate since I’m not going to be driving a heavy SUV aggressively.
I like the little Kia wagon that we’re not getting, but it’s a small cheap car and i would want to row my own gears. I do not like automatic small cars. I could live with the auto in the Carnival, but have no real need for that much space.
I guess the vehicle I’d most likely buy from the group would be a heavily-depreciated Ioniq 5.
The G70 Flying Boot? I think those even come with a small diesel in the EU. That would be interesting to see if we would accept it.
I’ve never driven a diesel.
I’d give it a test drive, at least.
I am sure it is perfectly adequate and gets excellent fuel economy. I too would be interested in trying one out. Though I think the majority of the US is out on small car diesels currently.
I understand that they’re wonky and annoying, but I don’t follow how flush mechanical handles are in the same loony bin as the electronic ones
I’m in agreement with this. My first experience with a flush door handle was on a 2008 Aston Martin Vantage. It functioned perfectly fine as a mechanical door handle and looked great on the car.
But adding an electronic failure point to egress definitely tracks with loony bin decision making.
I agree. I used tho think flush door handles were cool. If they were body color they usually got messed up pretty quickly by rings or keys, but they were still interesting. I don’t remember any friends with door handle problems, and we were driving well-worn vehicles.
I think they were on some chryslers, maybe AMCs and a couple of Japanese cars . It was a long time ago.
This question’s answer is directly proportional to availability of public transit, and worker protections. Both of which are…spotty at best in North America. The latter more so in the lower 48.
With the EPA induced planned obsolescence of current vehicle drivetrains and the increased costs of even basic repairs, has basically made Youtube mechanics out of many of the people left behind in the 15 an hour McDonalds workers wars.
I don’t know for sure that public transpo has much to do with keeping a car running outside of maybe reducing miles from daily driver use?
It’s only bad that someone can’t afford a car if they have to rely on a car. That’s why I say it’s part of the conversation.
With the income thing – we’ve been experiencing quite a bit of inflation in the past five years. In general, wages don’t keep up with inflation. Some that negotiate their annual increases and bonuses or job hop for better pay would be able to beat inflation.
$100k in 2025 was $80k in 2020. Unless we know the number of 2020 car buyers below $80k in 2020 it’s not really a valid comparison.
This is the exact drum I beat endlessly. This was the same thing as the Cars.com study used in yesterdays TMD, stating there’s a huge reduction in cars under 30k since 2019, but 30k inflation adjusted to 2026 dollars is around 37.5k, and there are PLENTY of models available under that number, but the study choses to not analyze that difference. So many of these figures are apples to oranges comparisons that just show that inflation exists, and has been high over the past 6 years.
The average household income in 1985 was $27k, so we’re all much richer now because we make more than $27k. Is that not how it works?
Imagine that. $27k could cover the mortgage, kids, wife at home if she chose and you’d still get a pension at retirement.
You could smoke in the hospitals. You could shout slurs in public places. Drinking and driving was barely frowned-upon. Grown men could openly date teenagers and the government had just figured out how to use targeted marketing to isolate the wealthy from military service.
If I could not find a clearance left over Soul and would get a Seltos. They are just basic transportation for not a crazy price.
I’d take a Kia PV5 as a daily. My wife would probably rock an Ioniq 6 to replace her Optima.
If Kia would electrify the K4 Hatch, I’d line up for one.
Otherwise, my wife is crushed that they discontinued the Soul. She’s had three of them, and was planning on another in the next few years. Guess she “gets” to upgrade to the Niro or Seltos.
I do really like the G90, although it’s less compelling at $100K+ compared to the $60-70K that I remember from its introduction.
Incomplete analysis without reporting on how many more families make over $100K and over $200K now vs 2020.
https://dqydj.com/household-income-percentile-calculator/
2020: $100,000 is the 65th percentile (35% of households made that much or more) and $200,000 is the 89th percentile.
2025: $100,000 is the 57th percentile, $200,000 is the 84th percentile.
So with ~135 million households in the US, the data suggest that about 10 million more households make $100,000 than 5 years ago, and about 6.75 million additional make $200K+.
Considering about 16 million cars were sold last year, a 13 point drop in sub $100K buyers is only 2 million “lost sales”, far less than the 10 million folks who graduated to the higher income bracket.
If the crossover is individual income of 100k+, we can probably just focus on that 200k household number. Which is a much smaller percentile move (I’ve always struggled with percentiles, so I’m not doing the math).
Between 6 and 7 million US households that made less than $200,000 in 2020 made more than that number in 2025.
Or if you prefer, $100K was an 84th percentile income in 2020 and a 77th percentile in 2025, so ~9.5 million individuals made six figures in 2025 that did not in 2020.
Thank you for the maths.
Right after you said that I realized I made an error and can no longer edit to correct it.
I used the number of households in the individual income percentile number rather than the number of individual workers. That is more like 171 million instead of 135 million, so the number of individuals who saw a raise to over $100K between 2020-25 is closer to 12 million.
Maybe the G90 isn’t the value it once was, but it surely deserves to play in that space. It still starts $7k less than a 7 series and nearly $30k less than a S Class, but yeah the competition is tough up there. I’m also not sure how much the $100k income figure actually matters when everything seems to be rising in cost in proportion. Even a $10k raise feels more like a cost of living adjustment than a “let’s buy a new car” windfall. I’m sure there are better metrics out there to gauge actual purchasing power or whether or not a buyer is “affluent” over a five year span than just “how many people made X dollars in a year”.
It’s definitely a messy stat that is IMO designed to drive a particular point across of questionable validity.
No doubt the “K-shaped” thing has some basis in reality, but the way it’s often presented implies that the top half of the K is very small, whereas in reality a lot of people have a lot of money to spend on things.
The top half of the “K” is short but wide, extra bold, like some mutant font, while the tail of it is long, skinny and ready to snap off.
-2/3s of Americans own a home, many of whom have seen a huge runup in equity over the last decade.
-62% of Americans own stocks, which are at record highs.
-Nearly half of households make six figures.
~25 million people in the US are millionaires.
There are a lot of people in the top of the K.
As I always say when making posts like this, of course not everything is perfect for everyone. My point as always is to contrast the weird pessimism that permeates online discourse with actual facts.
Some of that seems extremely misleading at first glance.
2/3rds of Americans owning a home – I think that’s from the census, right? And I think the question there was how many homes are owner-occupied as opposed to how many Americans actually own a home, it is not the same thing. Adult children living at home (or grandparents living with the adult kids) get counted in that when they don’t actually own the home and aren’t able to buy one. Those same adult children are part of the household income calculation. You could have five (or more) people in a house all working part time at McDonalds and overall bringing in 100k. That doesn’t make any of them remotely well off even if Mom and Dad “own” the home.
Only 78% of all americans are over 18 so at lot of these percentages seem suspect already – But do the supposed 62% of Americans that own stocks own then in a normal account or are they locked away in an IRA or 401k, i.e. not accessible until sometime in the future when they need that money to actually pay for food and utilities and healthcare and whatever else in retirement?
25 million millionaires – Is that actual liquid cash money millionaires or would they need to tap their equity or sell their current home to get access to at least a million in cash? Net worth of $1 million or more is VERY different than having $1 million or more in readily available money.
Quibble with the exact definitions or numbers all you want, but the point that hundreds of millions have some plausible pathway to being in or near the top of the supposed “K” is my point. This isn’t a 1% economy; prosperity is broadly shared, even if not broadly enough.
Okay. Those aren’t quibbles, they are fundamental questions as to the accuracy of the numbers and how they are perhaps “spun” by whoever is doing the presentation. Just to pick one aspect, 25 million millionaires sounds great but if that million dollars is tied up in primary home equity or a 401k it doesn’t look anywhere near as good (or useful) to the owner that needs to replace a car or whatever. Not everyone can wait until they can unlock their 40lk or IRA without penalty. Sure, everyone could sell their oversized home and trade down but that’s simply not realistic with the issue already being not having enough smaller, less pricy homes to meet the demand.
“Hundreds of millions” have some plausible pathways to be in the upper part of the K? There are only about 270 million adult people in the U.S. By definition it can’t be more than half being the top half of the K which already defeats the idea of there being multiple hundreds of millions that can get there in addition to the ones already there.
It may well not be a 1% economy, but it’s not a 50% economy either, perhaps a 7-10% one at best with many of those using a significant debt load to try to make it appear they are part of it.
Numbers matter. And the words describing them matter even more.
OK, I shared numbers, do you have any? Or just vibes?
No, I was pointing out that your numbers do not make sense and was somewhat taken aback by your response. The reality is somewhere less (or more bleak) than your raw numbers without the necessary context and caveats, the picture is not nearly as rosy as it you made it seem to others that don’t ever question anything but just assume that someone who posts a lot (and usually/generally has pretty good opinions) is correct.
After my first question your response doubled down with an even more dubious claim that literally could not be correct if taking numbers at face value. If you want to actually research your positions, statements, and context and re-broadcast a revision instead of just stating things that don’t pass basic scrutiny then I’m happy to read them and give them whatever credit they may be due, but I’m not (re)doing your homework for you. Have a good day, time to move on (for me at least).
I’m bored today at work so I’ll humor this one more time.
The reason I’ve responded with disdain is because I don’t find your objections to my numbers compelling, and you haven’t provided anything tangible to dispute them, only hypotheticals.
3070/3144 (98%) of US counties had more homeowners than renters in 2023.
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024/acs-5-year-homeowners-renters.html
There are nearly twice as many owner-occupied units in the US as renter-occupied units, giving credence to the 2/3 figure.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/EOWNOCCUSQ176N
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ERNTOCCUSQ176N
Suppose you still think this is misleading, and that the “downwardly mobile adult child living at home” demographic is large and underrepresented in survey data.
I welcome you providing data on this, as I cannot find any. I can find the following though, which seems me to be an unquestionable sign of broad-based financial health:
40% of homeowners have no mortgage. That is 33 million households, or some 20% of the United States.
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2026/01/mortgage-free-homes.html
https://www.wlwt.com/article/mortgage-free-homeowners-map-census/70188576
Considering the median home price is some $400,000+, it’s hard for me to take seriously the idea that only 7-10% of the country has an economy working for them.
More than 1/3 of Americans owned stocks outside of retirement accounts in 2019. I cannot find more recent data. This is some 90 million adults. Please forgive me exaggerating that to 100 million, which you seemed to take great offense at.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/09/25/few-in-u-s-owned-stocks-outside-of-401ks-in-2019-fewer-said-market-had-a-big-impact-on-their-view-of-economy/
Here is the best data I can find on the financial situation of millionaires:
https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2025/10/house-rich-millionaires/
17-25% of assets in liquid form when you have $1M+ is still a lot of money. Multiple hundreds of thousands in cash or non-retirement stocks. No one in this group is poor, or should be feeling deprived. The author even makes some of your points for you! But still acknowledges you can borrow against that equity or retirement in a true emergency.
Everything I’ve posted has been factual and supported, everything you’ve responded with has been vibes or whatabouts without data attached. You’re welcome to your interpretation of what I’ve posted of course, but the original point of the post was to refute the very attitude you’re espousing about doom and gloom.
My point was that your original numbers were overly optimistic and seemed not correct. Every single one of your now researched positions supports that argument. Every number has shifted down to look less rosy. I’ll let whoever wants to read this thread (nobody, likely) draw their own conclusions after doing the math themselves with your supplied links vs your original assertions no matter how much you’re gaslighting with statements such as “Everything I’ve posted has been factual and supported” when it was not originally and now you showed yourself that it wasn’t accurate.
2/3rds of people living in owner occupied homes does not mean the same thing as 2/3rds of all people owning a home. You can try to use strawmen such as making fun of “the downwardly mobile adult kids living at home” etc but this is how statistics are misused. Maybe you aren’t seeing this in your neighborhood but it’s out there.
If 1/3rd (your new number) of american adults (260million) owned stock outside of retirement accounts, then that’s around 78million. Not 90M, not 100M, and certainly nowhere near the 62 percent figure you originally claimed which would be over 160 million of them. That’s the number I took “great offense” to, in your words. So it’s about half the number of people of your original claim. That’s fairly significant.
Sure you can borrow against a home in a “true emergency”, but buying a new car is usually not that. Sure, a percentage of paper millionaires have cash. Your millionaire link said the following about the 24 million “paper millionaires”: “The problem is that most of that net worth is not liquid. Instead, it’s mostly tied up in a house or retirement accounts (which is what I said earlier.) Bloomberg (your link) explains:
Despite this relative affluence, today’s millionaires rarely have anywhere near $1 million to spend however they want. For the barely-millionaires, households with a net worth between $1 million and $2 million, the vast majority of that wealth is illiquid. They typically had 66% of their wealth tied up in a primary home and retirement accounts in 2023, an increase of eight percentage points since 2017.
To spend freely, millionaires typically need to be a lot richer. Households with $5 million or more had about 24% in easier-to-access bank or brokerage accounts in 2023, compared to 17% for those closer to the $1 million mark.
You have to move up the wealth scale a decent amount until the liquidity profile changes substantially, making your wealth easier to access.”
In other words it’s clear that MANY of those folks do not have very much readily accessible cash and just because it’s not in their primary or retirement accounts doesn’t mean it is all freely accessible, some/many have rental properties or other commitments as well. Even if not, having a couple of hundred thousand in cash doesn’t usually mean it’s a good idea to blow a quarter of that or more on the “average transaction price” vehicle, let alone a pricier one. The last sentence itself states that you have to move up the wealth scale a lot more than just clearning the bar to “millionaire” to be able to spend freely. So that leaves quite a few less than the 24 or 25 million millionaires as per your original claim.
Dude, it’s fine. Your original numbers were exaggerated or at the very least not sufficiently researched before being presented as fact. Perhaps to try to make a point. Everything since then has been trying to turn it around as if I was claiming everything is in free fall, which I did not. I pointed out that your numbers did not make sense at face value. Your own research validates that if you compare it back to your original post. You stated you are posting “actual facts” in your original post, which you clearly were not. However I don’t expect you to backtrack now, so whatever, let others draw their own opinions. Either way, Matt and the crew got a half-dozen more clicks which I guess is the point of the original post.
The numbers in the first post were facts, easily discernable from valid and respected sources, and I’ve backtracked from none of them.
The Census homeownership rate really is 66%. 62% of US adults really do own stocks. 43% of American households do make 6 figures. 25 million Americans really are millionaires. None of those are lies or exaggerations.
You’ve chosen to question the implication I drew from these facts, which was that both a large absolute number and a large percentage of Americans are affluent. Fine, such is your right. But don’t pretend you’ve convinced me that I’m somehow wrong, or that you’ve brought anything other than vibes to this argument.
Your claim that “at most” 7-10% of Americans have an economy working for them is less supported by facts or inference than anything I’ve posted in this thread, yet you’re accusing me of gaslighting? Please get real.
You’re fighting the good fight showing how things have improved over the years. Unfortunately, most people on the Internet either think things are either the same as they were during the Great recession or worse. Facts and statistics be damned.
I really like the K4s, and esp the funky sedan with its quasi-kamm back style rear and Blade Runner spec taillights. If Kia would only offer a manual somewhere in the line up (I’m optimistic about the hatch), it might be a fun everyday cheap car I’d consider if I had to replace my Focus.
Where the fuck are all of these 6-figure jobs?
I make 7 figures if you include the numbers to the right of the decimal point.
Car sales!
/s
It’s tech balloon. And maybe general contractors.
Manufacturing, but be prepared to work 50-60 hours a week not by choice.
I’ve worked in manufacturing doing 50-60 hours a week, sure as fuck didn’t come with $100k
The Ford Plant transplanted some employees from New Jersey in the early 2000’s. They got moving bonuses, tons of perks and kept their NJ wage which was far higher than most in the local plant. they also worked 50 hours a week mandatory. even back then they were averaging 90k a year. This was often before profit sharing bonuses. And that was at least 20 years ago. I can only imagine what a senior Union line worker makes these days.
Maintenance at Ford was $42/hr+ before you get the added shift premiums if you’re topped out (4 years) in 2024. It goes up every year too. I worked there until last March so I am sure it is higher now.
I have worked in manufacturing since 2019 and have cleared that every year since. However, the OT will kill you if you let it.
COTD
I’m thinking/hoping that they mean a household income?
Yeah, most of these statistics are going on household income, even if they don’t say. Not sure on this one, but it’s common. That said, six-figure jobs are also more common in large coastal cities (where the cost of living is high enough that those salaries are needed to attract/retain talent).
My problem with that is I’ve never been able to get my house to work for me. Guess it’s true: the house always wins.
x1000. I am just a shlub who decided to go into the public schools…. If I can get a 6 figure job that might get me to leave…
If you stay in public education for 25-30 years you may work your way up to a 6 figure job.
ehhh….. 20th year. I am at 60500….. But I get to shape the future generations…..
Teach in CT or MA…
Or NY. Teachers in Upstate NY are some of the wealthiest people in their towns (for better or worse lol).
But yeah, 20 years in as a teacher in NY? You’re making well into six figure territory.
*WITH A PENSION*
I cannot emphasize enough how pensions getting turned into 401Ks, etc, really screwed everyone.
It allowed companies to slither out of things like ensuring their pension trust could fund its *DEFINED BENEFIT* retirement obligations. Instead, they went to defined contribution, which simply says “fine, we’ll pay a little, but it’s on YOU to peel off enough of your typically paltry pay to fund this thing properly so you have enough to live between working and dying. Good luck!”
Yes, Being a teacher in MN means union and state pension. At this point they are both worth the lower annual salary.
In the Twin Cities one can get to 100k as a teacher (master’s) before that but you have deal with extra cold temps and extrajudicial government executions.
Coming soon to a town near you…
Lots of school systems will fund your Masters if you get it within a certain time of becoming an entry-level teacher.
Please pick a new shape.
Is that cumulative?
if you teach in the metro twin cities you can hit 100k in 20 years if you have 45-60 credits past a masters degree. so not easy and crap wages.
Hopefully where I’m at, once we finally finish our latest union negotiations. But I’m in the land of Bears and Geese, so that’ll equate to about $75k in Stars & Bars tokens.
To answer your question, I have no fucking clue.
Seriously even with some OT last year I still have yet to crack 100k (I am 33) I do the work of engineers here who are 2 or 3 levels above me making probably double my pay or more gotta love it.
if it makes you feel better, 40K was a big starting wage for a drafter in 2000, now the Quality Techs at the end of the line make more. and Drafters, if needed these days are up around 100K. Though location and company worked for affects where the person fits on a bell curve of course.
I’m assuming most of these figures are households, rather than individuals, and it seems like a very large percentage of married households these days are dual income.
I feel like most people in corporate jobs that are senior manager and above must be making at least $100K, no? Obviously, this is going to vary industry to industry. But it seems to be true at F500 manufacturing companies where I have worked, and it’s definitely true in big tech and reasonably high ranking consulting, finance, etc. firms.
Yeah GM’s and the like are making that, but 1/3 of the car buying population is absurd
Well, it’s 1/3 of the new car buying population, no? I think that would skew toward higher income (although I am aware that people buy cheap new cars because of the financing opportunities).
Also, where I have worked GM typically = VP level. Those guys (yes, guys) are making a hell of a lot more than $100K. By “senior manager” I meant solidly middle management, under director level.
Weapons manufacturing?
Have you considered applying to your local criminal organization?
Nah, the local GOP sucks
Construction does well, especially superintendent and construction management roles. But 50hrs is often considered baseline and there are shit holidays.
With all the demand for data centers construction workers will be very wealthy
AI taking your job? be an electrician, or a plumber or HVAC. those trades and already in high demand.
Union ones, too, if possible! Data centers aren’t too popular by me, but warehouses and multi-family are.
Re: AI taking jerbs; construction just seems so ass-backwards somedays that shaking hands really means something often. Asking Siri to write a message for you is considered AI in construction.
Union construction workers in California, I’m in that space. I can’t speak for none union construction workers.
Lots of jobs make $50 an hour in California.
Excluding attorney, physician, CPA I can think of IT, Medical, Consulting, Finance, Professional contractors (licensed).
In urban areas where the houses all cost 7 figures.
I’ve driven a couple Genesis cars as rentals. If that’s the best they can do, I’m not buying Korean. They are OK, but they’re definitely not Acura.
The Genesis GV70 SUV, in poverty spec is definitely very average. They work fine, but not sure they add enough value personally. still they look handsome enough and I suppose the status to price is something?
“they’re definitely not Acura”
No, they’re not. They’re on a positive trajectory.
Acura isn’t Acura anymore. Their lineup consists of a failed and canceled sports sedan, a rebadged economy crossover, a rebadged Civic with two good trims but which sells primarily in sad CVT form, and two aged crossovers above it.
Genesis is steadily growing in marketshare while Acura is long term decline. I hope they have a strong product blitz coming because they need it.
I’m saying this as a 80s/90s kid who idolized the Integra, Vigor, and Legend, btw. Kinda annoyed at how bad the brand is now that I’m old enough to visit their showroom.
Why would I pay Lexus money for Acura, when I can get actual Lexus?
I quite like the stupid door handles, but I get it.