Jump to content


Photo

Social Mobility, The Baumol Effect, And The Reality Of Growing Up In America Today


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#21 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,657 posts

Posted 13 October 2019 - 0317 AM

 

 

These graphs from this report show the relatively high income gap in the US compared to some other countries although the median indicates that relatively, its not low if talking about all countries, but just lower than one could expect and looking lower if cutting the list short to the top 20 countries. However the second graph shows increasing/decreasing disparity between average per capita and median per capita for total net assets.

 

 

You are picking (IMO) the wrong measure, you should go for the modal income and then measure the gap above and below, as shown below, the median may not show where most people sit:

 

[images]

 

 

RETAC21, the graphs from the report are good enough to illustrate in general the income gap for each country. But it is fair to point out that the median value may not represent where the majority sit on total net assets. The best form would be to show the metric for each country. However I think your graphs do not show how the median could be of major error because in your graphs, the first value is at zero and climbs up to a high point at around 15% down the line curve. A line graph that represents the income or total assets is going to stat not at zero but at the highest point. Therefore the median value is going to be located at the mid point of the number of values  that go from the highest income value and the lowest. It is certainly going to be closer to the actual reality of middle income than what an average score would indicate.

 

 

Maybe yes, maybe not.

 

Each country would have different shares on how income is distributed, but this is a trap that is quite used by the Left: they will say inequality is rising because the gap between the richest and poorest is increasing, but the thing also needs to be studied in terms of relative income: say in country A the gap is 100% but in country B is only 50%, well, B looks better than A, doesn't it? now let me tell you that the lowest income in country A has gone up by 50% while in country B it has gone down by 50%. Now things are looks less rosy for country B than A irrespective of income differences.

 

Re the graphs, if you turn them around, the median won't change but the mode will, so 2 countries with the same median may have completely different modes and that will mean their situation would be radically different.


  • 0

#22 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,164 posts

Posted 13 October 2019 - 0333 AM

 

 

 

These graphs from this report show the relatively high income gap in the US compared to some other countries although the median indicates that relatively, its not low if talking about all countries, but just lower than one could expect and looking lower if cutting the list short to the top 20 countries. However the second graph shows increasing/decreasing disparity between average per capita and median per capita for total net assets.

 

 

You are picking (IMO) the wrong measure, you should go for the modal income and then measure the gap above and below, as shown below, the median may not show where most people sit:

 

[images]

 

 

RETAC21, the graphs from the report are good enough to illustrate in general the income gap for each country. But it is fair to point out that the median value may not represent where the majority sit on total net assets. The best form would be to show the metric for each country. However I think your graphs do not show how the median could be of major error because in your graphs, the first value is at zero and climbs up to a high point at around 15% down the line curve. A line graph that represents the income or total assets is going to stat not at zero but at the highest point. Therefore the median value is going to be located at the mid point of the number of values  that go from the highest income value and the lowest. It is certainly going to be closer to the actual reality of middle income than what an average score would indicate.

 

 

Maybe yes, maybe not.

 

Each country would have different shares on how income is distributed, but this is a trap that is quite used by the Left: they will say inequality is rising because the gap between the richest and poorest is increasing, but the thing also needs to be studied in terms of relative income: say in country A the gap is 100% but in country B is only 50%, well, B looks better than A, doesn't it? now let me tell you that the lowest income in country A has gone up by 50% while in country B it has gone down by 50%. Now things are looks less rosy for country B than A irrespective of income differences.

 

Re the graphs, if you turn them around, the median won't change but the mode will, so 2 countries with the same median may have completely different modes and that will mean their situation would be radically different.

 

 

Well yes that each country will have different shares in how income is shared and that left, or any media for that matter particularly when they are reporting on anything about economics, will make or imply a conclusion based on an incomplete set of variables. I believe that the second graph from my post does incorporate the factor of change over time which goes along with the point your making with your country A and country B example.

 

I don't understand the role of turning the graphs around as it doesn't matter if the high value that represents the super rich is starting at the left end or the right end. The mode would also only change from left side to right side or vice versa while still reflecting the same income class that occurs most often in either case.


  • 0

#23 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,657 posts

Posted 13 October 2019 - 0351 AM

 

 

 

 

These graphs from this report show the relatively high income gap in the US compared to some other countries although the median indicates that relatively, its not low if talking about all countries, but just lower than one could expect and looking lower if cutting the list short to the top 20 countries. However the second graph shows increasing/decreasing disparity between average per capita and median per capita for total net assets.

 

 

You are picking (IMO) the wrong measure, you should go for the modal income and then measure the gap above and below, as shown below, the median may not show where most people sit:

 

[images]

 

 

RETAC21, the graphs from the report are good enough to illustrate in general the income gap for each country. But it is fair to point out that the median value may not represent where the majority sit on total net assets. The best form would be to show the metric for each country. However I think your graphs do not show how the median could be of major error because in your graphs, the first value is at zero and climbs up to a high point at around 15% down the line curve. A line graph that represents the income or total assets is going to stat not at zero but at the highest point. Therefore the median value is going to be located at the mid point of the number of values  that go from the highest income value and the lowest. It is certainly going to be closer to the actual reality of middle income than what an average score would indicate.

 

 

Maybe yes, maybe not.

 

Each country would have different shares on how income is distributed, but this is a trap that is quite used by the Left: they will say inequality is rising because the gap between the richest and poorest is increasing, but the thing also needs to be studied in terms of relative income: say in country A the gap is 100% but in country B is only 50%, well, B looks better than A, doesn't it? now let me tell you that the lowest income in country A has gone up by 50% while in country B it has gone down by 50%. Now things are looks less rosy for country B than A irrespective of income differences.

 

Re the graphs, if you turn them around, the median won't change but the mode will, so 2 countries with the same median may have completely different modes and that will mean their situation would be radically different.

 

 

Well yes that each country will have different shares in how income is shared and that left, or any media for that matter particularly when they are reporting on anything about economics, will make or imply a conclusion based on an incomplete set of variables. I believe that the second graph from my post does incorporate the factor of change over time which goes along with the point your making with your country A and country B example.

 

I don't understand the role of turning the graphs around as it doesn't matter if the high value that represents the super rich is starting at the left end or the right end. The mode would also only change from left side to right side or vice versa while still reflecting the same income class that occurs most often in either case.

 

.

Yes, I explained myself incorrectly, i meant the average income that is what your second graph represents.(difference between average and median income)


  • 0

#24 Adam Peter

Adam Peter

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,357 posts

Posted 13 October 2019 - 0811 AM


Fascinating how a good amount of what has become cheaper appears to have economies of outsourced labor on its side.

 

 

I agree, with outsourcing they countered the inflation caused by the country getting richer.

 

On the other hand, outsourcing made those, as Marx would say, who does not own the manufacturing tools, poorer. See the middle class.

 

In turn, this made the next generation lost. Lucky them, there are less dangerous drugs as opiates for them in form of social media.


  • 0

#25 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,177 posts

Posted 13 October 2019 - 1006 AM

The problems you are suffering in the US are mirrored here with absurdly high house prices and the change from student grants to loans (although tuition is free in Scotland). I also work in healthcare and we dont have the government bureaucracy problem. We also have an obesity epidemic and an embryonic but fast growing opioid problem which are putting pressure on our (still free at point of delivery) healthcare system. It seems to be much easier to start a business here (I am co owner/director of one) too. Car repair is an issue here for the lower paid with older cars because they are often already struggling with astronomical rent or mortgages, although far fewer young people are even able to get a foot on the housing ladder now. They have become known as "Generation Rent".

The son of the fellow that did the mechanical restoration of Vandal came over to the US to recover some Sexton's from SECO Augusta. They flew into Atlanta and i lent them some of my larger tools (breaker bars and sockets). We went out to get dinner before they started over to Augusta the next day. 

 

Anyhow, he explained how pernicious the health and safety regs have been getting with all manner of licensure needed to operated various types of tools they'd had for years. It sounded like Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy was manifesting. 


  • 0

#26 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,989 posts

Posted 13 October 2019 - 1010 AM

 

The problems you are suffering in the US are mirrored here with absurdly high house prices and the change from student grants to loans (although tuition is free in Scotland). I also work in healthcare and we dont have the government bureaucracy problem. We also have an obesity epidemic and an embryonic but fast growing opioid problem which are putting pressure on our (still free at point of delivery) healthcare system. It seems to be much easier to start a business here (I am co owner/director of one) too. Car repair is an issue here for the lower paid with older cars because they are often already struggling with astronomical rent or mortgages, although far fewer young people are even able to get a foot on the housing ladder now. They have become known as "Generation Rent".

Chris, home prices here vary immensely with location. 

 

 

Yes, here too. But you probably wouldn't want to live where they are really low :)  I live in a place which, in the time I have been here, has gone from a relatively depressed backwater to a really trendy place to live. The "gentrification" has seen house prices rise much more than those on the immediate mainland. I feel sorry for young people here.


  • 0

#27 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,902 posts

Posted 15 October 2019 - 2009 PM

 

 

First post (also, thanks to everyone for the compliments!)

 

 

way back Stuart posted 2: the US consumer is getting poorer

 

Is that really true?  Everyone has a mobile phone/PC and flat screen TV's.  Restaurants are packed with people eating out.  Streets are covered with addicts that have the resources to engage in the purchase of illicit controlled substances.

People may be getting poorer as a result of negative interest rates at the Macro level but overall the standard of living has never been higher.  Even cars which I believe are terribly overpriced last far longer than they used to.

A 1960's vintage engine would be lucky to last 100,000 miles whereas a modern engine can be expected to last a quarter of a million.

 

I'm reminded of this graph which has shown up on TN a few times over the years:

 

1*YMaYGtv_bg0aeXM__dzFzw.jpeg

Obviously the government needs to regulate furniture, clothing, cars, software, cellphone service, toys, TVs and those other lower cost items more with price controls.

 

Again, the Econ professor writing the blog I linked to seems to think the government tie plays little in what we're seeing.  Here's the second link in that series I posted to:

 

 

SlateStarCodex, whose 2017 post on the cost disease was one of the motivations for our investigation, says Why Are the Prices so D*mn High (now available in print, ePub, and PDF) is “the best thing I’ve heard all year. It restores my faith in humanity.” I wouldn’t go that far.

 

SSC does have some lingering doubts and points to certain areas where the data isn’t clear and where we could have been clearer. I think this is inevitable. A lot has happened in the post World War II era. In dealing with very long run trends so much else is going on that answers will never be conclusive. It’s hard to see the signal in the noise. I think of the Baumol effect as something analogous to global warming. The tides come and go but the sea level is slowly rising.

 

In contrast, my friend Bryan Caplan is not happy. Bryan’s basic point is to argue, ‘look around at all the stupid ways in which the government prevents health care and education prices from falling. Of course, government is the explanation for higher prices.’ In point of fact, I agree with many of Bryan’s points. Bryan says, for example, that immigration would lower health care prices. Indeed it would. (Aside: it does seem odd for Bryan to argue that if K-12 education were privately funded schools would not continue their insane practice of requiring primary school teachers to have B.A.s when in fact, as Bryan knows, credentialism has occurred throughout the economy)

 

The problem with Bryan’s critiques is that they miss what we are trying to explain which is why some prices have risen while others have fallen. Immigration would indeed lower health care prices but it would also lower the price of automobiles leaving the net difference unexplained. Bryan, the armchair economist, has a simple syllogism, regulation increases prices, education is regulated, therefore regulation explains higher education prices. The problem is that most industries are regulated. Think about the regulations that govern the manufacture of automobiles. Why do all modern automobiles look the same? As Car and Driver puts it:

In our hyperregulated modern world, the government dictates nearly every aspect of car design, from the size and color of the exterior lighting elements to how sharp the creases stamped into sheet metal can be.

 

(See Jeffrey Tucker for more). And that’s just design regulation. There are also environmental regulations (e.g. ethanol, catalytic converters, CAFE etc.), engine regulations, made in America regulations, not to mention all the regulations on the inputs like steel and coal. The government even regulates how cars can be sold, preventing Tesla from selling direct to the public! When you put all these regulations together it’s not at all obvious that there is more regulation in education than in auto manufacturing. Indeed, since the major increase in regulation since the 1970s has been in environmental regulation, which impacts manufacturing more than services, it seems plausible that regulation has increased more for auto manufacturing.

 

As an empirical economist, I am interested in testable hypotheses. A testable hypothesis is that the industries with the biggest increases in regulation have seen the biggest increases in prices over time. Yet, when we test that hypothesis as best we can it appears to be false. Remember, this does not mean that regulation doesn’t increase prices! It can and probably does it’s just that regulation is not the explanation for the differences in prices we see across industries. (Note also that Bryan argues that you don’t need increasing regulation to explain increasing prices, which is true, but I still need a testable hypotheses not an unfalsifiable claim.)

 

So by all means let’s deregulate, but don’t expect 70+ year price trends to reverse until robots and AI start improving productivity in services faster than in manufacturing.

 

Let me close with this. What I found most convincing about the Baumol effect is consilience. Here, for example, are two figures which did not make the book. The first shows car prices versus car repair prices. The second shows shoe and clothing prices versus shoe repair, tailors, dry cleaners and hair styling. In both cases, the goods price is way down and the service price is up. The Baumol effect offers a unifying account of trends such as this across many different industries. Other theories tend to be ad hoc, false, or unfalsifiable.

ShoeRepair-768x557.png

CarRepair-768x557.png

 

 

https://marginalrevo...o-dmn-high.html

 

I'm really interested in reading his free 90-page ebook on the matter.  Unfortunately it'll be a while til I can get to it.


  • 0

#28 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,145 posts

Posted 16 October 2019 - 0501 AM

I read several years ago that the most heavily regulated companies are the ones who give the most in political contributions. While I would like to believe, I do not know if it is actually true. 


  • 0

#29 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe

    purposeful grimace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,222 posts

Posted 16 October 2019 - 1744 PM

I read several years ago that the most heavily regulated companies are the ones who give the most in political contributions. While I would like to believe, I do not know if it is actually true. 

 

Google the phrase "regulatory capture."


  • 0

#30 Brian Kennedy

Brian Kennedy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,439 posts

Posted 16 October 2019 - 1804 PM

IMHO the Big Three in terms of the rising costs that are f*cking over the kids are healthcare, college tuition and housing prices.

 

The healthcare thing is pretty widely known -- we spend way more on healthcare than most countries that have single-payer systems and get overall worse treatment except for terminal stuff.

 

Obamacare was an attempt to redress that but was kind of a mashup kludge given political considerations. But if you factor in the monthly healthcare payments for USAians, the taxes that people in countries that have "socialist medicine" pay actually seem a lot more reasonable.

 

Rising college tuition is a combo of states gutting support for public universities, colleges being able to charge higher tuition because "everybody needs to go to college," b.s. administrative costs and the idea that college should be a summer camp with rock-climbing walls and stuff.  

 

Housing, I would assume varies from state to state, but is probably more of a blue state problem given the fact that the higher-end part of their economies are doing a lot better than most red states and they have more restrictions on building housing, not as much wide-open land, etc. (I'd put NYC as an exception -- it's always going to be super expensive, especially when the economy's booming, and there are still a shit-ton of neighborhoods in the outer boroughs where you can have a pretty cheap life).


Edited by Brian Kennedy, 16 October 2019 - 1804 PM.

  • 0

#31 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,590 posts

Posted 17 October 2019 - 0136 AM

IMHO the Big Three in terms of the rising costs that are f*cking over the kids are healthcare, college tuition and housing prices.
 
The healthcare thing is pretty widely known -- we spend way more on healthcare than most countries that have single-payer systems and get overall worse treatment except for terminal stuff.
 
Obamacare was an attempt to redress that but was kind of a mashup kludge given political considerations. But if you factor in the monthly healthcare payments for USAians, the taxes that people in countries that have "socialist medicine" pay actually seem a lot more reasonable.

 
The USA has by far the highest prices on anything medical. drugs, bandages, services etc. It is totally out of control as far as I can see from here. I mean when you can get it cheaper in Switzerland something is really wrong. 

 

 

Rising college tuition is a combo of states gutting support for public universities, colleges being able to charge higher tuition because "everybody needs to go to college," b.s. administrative costs and the idea that college should be a summer camp with rock-climbing walls and stuff.

 
Also all the private universities that were opened the last few decades raise the overall average price for uni education. Made possible by freely giving out loans.

 

 

Housing, I would assume varies from state to state, but is probably more of a blue state problem given the fact that the higher-end part of their economies are doing a lot better than most red states and they have more restrictions on building housing, not as much wide-open land, etc. (I'd put NYC as an exception -- it's always going to be super expensive, especially when the economy's booming, and there are still a shit-ton of neighborhoods in the outer boroughs where you can have a pretty cheap life).

 
Housing prices rise where there is a high concentraiton of economic activity e.g. inner NYC or Silicon Valley.

 

But we have also hte effect that since the financial crisis ten years ago we have an inflation hiding in the stock market with ever rising "values" and then people with all that money want to buy something they can touch like land and houses, which increases prices pretty much across the board. Even in rather remote locations.


  • 0

#32 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,145 posts

Posted 17 October 2019 - 0548 AM

 

I read several years ago that the most heavily regulated companies are the ones who give the most in political contributions. While I would like to believe, I do not know if it is actually true. 

 

Google the phrase "regulatory capture."

 

Thank you.


  • 0

#33 JWB

JWB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,686 posts

Posted 17 October 2019 - 1101 AM

 

 

I read several years ago that the most heavily regulated companies are the ones who give the most in political contributions. While I would like to believe, I do not know if it is actually true. 

 

Google the phrase "regulatory capture."

 

Thank you.

 

And rent seeking.


  • 0

#34 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,145 posts

Posted 18 October 2019 - 0413 AM

 

 

 

I read several years ago that the most heavily regulated companies are the ones who give the most in political contributions. While I would like to believe, I do not know if it is actually true. 

 

Google the phrase "regulatory capture."

 

Thank you.

 

And rent seeking.

 

Thanks about the "rent seeking."  Good read!

 

 https://commentaries...onopoly-problem


  • 0

#35 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,145 posts

Posted 18 October 2019 - 0435 AM

IMHO the Big Three in terms of the rising costs that are f*cking over the kids are healthcare, college tuition and housing prices.

 

The healthcare thing is pretty widely known -- we spend way more on healthcare than most countries that have single-payer systems and get overall worse treatment except for terminal stuff.

 

Obamacare was an attempt to redress that but was kind of a mashup kludge given political considerations. But if you factor in the monthly healthcare payments for USAians, the taxes that people in countries that have "socialist medicine" pay actually seem a lot more reasonable.

 

Rising college tuition is a combo of states gutting support for public universities, colleges being able to charge higher tuition because "everybody needs to go to college," b.s. administrative costs and the idea that college should be a summer camp with rock-climbing walls and stuff.  

 

Housing, I would assume varies from state to state, but is probably more of a blue state problem given the fact that the higher-end part of their economies are doing a lot better than most red states and they have more restrictions on building housing, not as much wide-open land, etc. (I'd put NYC as an exception -- it's always going to be super expensive, especially when the economy's booming, and there are still a shit-ton of neighborhoods in the outer boroughs where you can have a pretty cheap life).

Cannot disagree with what you have posted at all. But let's elaborate.

 

"the taxes that people in countries that have "socialist medicine" pay actually seem a lot more reasonable."

I would say no. Just for one example, see Vermont's single payer system that failed. There is not enough tax monies for the "someone else should pay for all of my healthcare" schemes. Much of the cost stated in health care is do to poor choices made by to many Americans, ie tobacco and obesity. Private health insurance takes this into account via increased premiums, Medicare and Medicaid do not. For an example of what I would consider  good health insurance is https://mychristiancare.org/medi-share

Also, have every health care dollar spent be a tax credit. This would be big help to those of us actually work for a living. 

 

Rising college tuition is a combo of states gutting support for public universities, colleges being able to charge higher tuition because "everybody needs to go to college," b.s. administrative costs and the idea that college should be a summer camp with rock-climbing walls and stuff.  

That and since government covers the cost of much tuition, said universities can charge what they want. Now extrapolate this to government funded health care. The increased financial and lower quality result is blatantly obvious. From talking with various adults it appears too many teens and 20 year olds have this aversion to getting there hands dirty in blue-collar type jobs. 

 

Housing,...

As you stated housing costs vary tremendously from state to state and often in the same city. Housing and the cost of living is more expensive in liberal areas than conservative ones. Many parents also want a better education for their children, hence if they can, they avoid inter-city schools and line up for charter schools and similar choices. 


  • 0

#36 Tim the Tank Nut

Tim the Tank Nut

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,938 posts

Posted 18 October 2019 - 1124 AM

on car repairs I am not certain you people are thinking this through.  A power mirror for a 1998 Honda is about a $50 item.  It has a heating element and a power motor that positions the mirror.  A power mirror for a 2018 Honda is over a thousand dollars.  That is because it has blind spot sensors (radar) and power controls and heating elements and cameras that all have to by synchronized to the on board computer system.  Lots of mirrors get bumped off and it's no small expense.  Now suppose that the Honda is paint code R5439 Carnelian Red Pearl.  That's several hundred dollars just for the paint.  So I think you are talking about repairs that involve a water pump failure or an alternator failure; the reality is a lot of repairs are from collision damage.  Even someone with a $500 deductible is going to be hammered by a mild fender bender.

All of the on board safety systems are there because of the government.  CAFE type regulations have forced cars to be smaller and lighter which requires more determined engineering to be safe enough.  That generates expense.  Modern cars are safer and more reliable than older cars but when they break it can be a lot of money.  Often it is more money than the average family has laying around.


  • 0

#37 MiloMorai

MiloMorai

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,962 posts

Posted 18 October 2019 - 1846 PM

A water pump or alternator requires the engine compartment to be ripped apart to be replaced. At $75 or more /hr that adds up fast.


  • 0

#38 Tim the Tank Nut

Tim the Tank Nut

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,938 posts

Posted 19 October 2019 - 0814 AM

It does add up fast but the level of equipment required to maintain a modern shop capable of repairing newer cars is considerable.  While $75 per hour is a lot of money almost none of that is profit.  The best run shops clear about 4% after expenses.

With that said a water pump, alternator, or a/c compressor has double the expected life that it had in the seventies.  Modern cars are pretty amazing once you take out the electronic/computer body control systems (which are problematic at best).

We got almost 100,000 miles out of factory brakes on our Focus delivery car.  That is amazing.  At 140,000 miles it still has the original front suspension and it is in good shape.

The difficulties come with collision damage where even a minor body part light a headlight has to be calibrated to the car's on board systems.

Comparing cars and car repair to college tuition and health care is apples to oranges but at least with cars you are getting value for your money.  The education system makes health care look good and that is saying something.


  • 0

#39 Stargrunt6

Stargrunt6

    Empire Apologist

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,853 posts

Posted 19 October 2019 - 2327 PM

on car repairs I am not certain you people are thinking this through.  A power mirror for a 1998 Honda is about a $50 item.  It has a heating element and a power motor that positions the mirror.  A power mirror for a 2018 Honda is over a thousand dollars.  That is because it has blind spot sensors (radar) and power controls and heating elements and cameras that all have to by synchronized to the on board computer system.  Lots of mirrors get bumped off and it's no small expense.  Now suppose that the Honda is paint code R5439 Carnelian Red Pearl.  That's several hundred dollars just for the paint.  So I think you are talking about repairs that involve a water pump failure or an alternator failure; the reality is a lot of repairs are from collision damage.  Even someone with a $500 deductible is going to be hammered by a mild fender bender.

Can confirm. I have a $500 deductible and just replaced a mirror from a hit and run. Cost me about $600 to repair. I own a Subaru

Edited by Stargrunt6, 19 October 2019 - 2328 PM.

  • 0