> Guess what, same here. An engineer at Statoil makes a lot more than a janitor. Minimum wage here is higher and there's a more elaborate safety net, still living at that end is very uncomfortable. Again I don't see any takeaway from this.
Point being that poor people don't buy Teslas. That's why inequality of income in the Bay is relevant. Wealthy engineers are buying Teslas because they can afford it. Most of the population cannot. Your government subsidies make Teslas affordable to a larger chunk of the population, but wealth is still a significant factor. Subsidies just happen to be a bigger one.
> This is a realistic claim because the government does not subsidize a vehicle with own money as it is often presented here, but withholds extra taxation.
These two scenarios are effectively the same:
1. Car costs X and taxes are Y. Government waives Y in taxes.
2. Car costs X and taxes are Y. Government provides discount of Y against cost of car.
Whether the government waives taxes or literally helps you pay the car is irrelevant. The net effect on the government's finances (and the customer's finances) is the same.
Again, I'm not saying this is a bad thing. But it is absolutely a massive subsidy.
> The end result is people here drive tons of Teslas and other EVs, and the market has changed for good. When tax incentives removed, people will still drive them, as they are simply better rides overall with simpler maintenance routine.
Maybe. I bet if the incentives disappeared tomorrow a lot of people would stop buying them, especially if the price hasn't dropped on its own. Hopefully incentives like Norways are helping to push down cost permanently by increasing the volume, though.
> I don't see in any way why has Tesla miscalculated the market as initially stated. I see tons of their cars on the roads every day, so it arrived here. It is hilarious my benign remark was treated as some classist rub.
I don't think anyone actually asserted that Tesla had miscalculated the market, only that there hasn't been a revolution yet. Good for Norway for achieving a local one at least.
> Look, I'm not sure how it's in the States, but a BMW or Audi won't get you laid in Europe. Kids won't drop their candy and men won't think of your "status". Cabbies drive Merc E class here (not just in Norway). Pakistani immigrants drive German sedans. Everyone knows they are more expensive but not out of range of a middle income family on a financing - just a matter of your priorities. Porsche Cayenne is "luxury", Maibach is, but A5 and the likes, made in hundreds thousands each year is not. Tesla is cool in its own high tech way, but salon trim doesn't give a luxury vibe either.
Cars in general don't get you laid anywhere. That doesn't mean that they aren't status symbols. Most status symbols aren't actually out of reach of the average middle class family. Smart marketing is to price these things such that they are affordable but also a decent stretch. That keeps them reasonably exclusive while also providing access to a massive market of consumers. This is no different in the US. Middle class families can afford BMWs, but most of them don't.
You're welcome to think that expensive cars aren't status symbols if you like, though.
True, but here they wouldn't buy cars at all, just use bus. The income extremes don't matter as much if we stick to the cars that are actually on the roads. If we restrict to what lower vs higher middle class buys, calling that 'income inequality' in original sense of the problem is a joke. The gap is not huge and social mobility there is relatively easy (in Norway).
> The net effect on the government's finances (and the customer's finances) is the same.
There are other fiscal effects as well, even if not explicit in annual budgeting. E.g. my town is mostly surrounded by mountains and every winter it has an exhaust cushion over it. Which triggers crises among the asthmatics, so the municipality has to introduce date driving for prolonged periods. E.g. drive with odd number licence plate on odd days and even on even. This has both direct costs and productivity losses.
The whole idea to push for electric was to reduce externalized costs of car pollution on population and the nature. Mind you it's not the first such an effort: in the 1990s, the government here (and in some other countries) promoted diesels vs petrol cars for lower emissions. That is until they learned about particle emissions of diesels.
And how it was done? Correct, import tax rebates on diesel vehicles. Except you never ever hear anyone saying "diesel revolution has not arrived" or "diesel has to be subsidised by government to compete".
> You're welcome to think that expensive cars aren't status symbols if you like, though.
Maybe I misunderstand the concept then, point is these cars are bloody ordinary in Europe. When I singled out A5 I meant it's being bought by people who previously would consider different class vehicles, as Tesla was meant to compete with 7-seaters and top of the line sedans.
Point being that poor people don't buy Teslas. That's why inequality of income in the Bay is relevant. Wealthy engineers are buying Teslas because they can afford it. Most of the population cannot. Your government subsidies make Teslas affordable to a larger chunk of the population, but wealth is still a significant factor. Subsidies just happen to be a bigger one.
> This is a realistic claim because the government does not subsidize a vehicle with own money as it is often presented here, but withholds extra taxation.
These two scenarios are effectively the same:
1. Car costs X and taxes are Y. Government waives Y in taxes.
2. Car costs X and taxes are Y. Government provides discount of Y against cost of car.
Whether the government waives taxes or literally helps you pay the car is irrelevant. The net effect on the government's finances (and the customer's finances) is the same.
Again, I'm not saying this is a bad thing. But it is absolutely a massive subsidy.
> The end result is people here drive tons of Teslas and other EVs, and the market has changed for good. When tax incentives removed, people will still drive them, as they are simply better rides overall with simpler maintenance routine.
Maybe. I bet if the incentives disappeared tomorrow a lot of people would stop buying them, especially if the price hasn't dropped on its own. Hopefully incentives like Norways are helping to push down cost permanently by increasing the volume, though.
> I don't see in any way why has Tesla miscalculated the market as initially stated. I see tons of their cars on the roads every day, so it arrived here. It is hilarious my benign remark was treated as some classist rub.
I don't think anyone actually asserted that Tesla had miscalculated the market, only that there hasn't been a revolution yet. Good for Norway for achieving a local one at least.
> Look, I'm not sure how it's in the States, but a BMW or Audi won't get you laid in Europe. Kids won't drop their candy and men won't think of your "status". Cabbies drive Merc E class here (not just in Norway). Pakistani immigrants drive German sedans. Everyone knows they are more expensive but not out of range of a middle income family on a financing - just a matter of your priorities. Porsche Cayenne is "luxury", Maibach is, but A5 and the likes, made in hundreds thousands each year is not. Tesla is cool in its own high tech way, but salon trim doesn't give a luxury vibe either.
Cars in general don't get you laid anywhere. That doesn't mean that they aren't status symbols. Most status symbols aren't actually out of reach of the average middle class family. Smart marketing is to price these things such that they are affordable but also a decent stretch. That keeps them reasonably exclusive while also providing access to a massive market of consumers. This is no different in the US. Middle class families can afford BMWs, but most of them don't.
You're welcome to think that expensive cars aren't status symbols if you like, though.