Find Reviews by Make:
In other words, TTAC commentator Stephen Teller has assembled a chart matching the amount of Cash for Clunkers money doled out per state, divided by population. [download here] Here are the top ten in reverse order:
10. Vermont – $3.82
9. Iowa – $4.06
8. Nebraska – $4.14
7. Maine – $4.14
6. New Hampshire – $4.16
5. Wisconsin – $4.27
4. Michigan – $4.44
3. South Dakota – $5.02
2. North Dakota – $5.15
1. Minnesota – $5.78
18 Comments on “Data (Dumpster?) Dive: Cash for Clunkers States Ranked Per Head of Population...”
Read all comments
^^^Vermonter^^^
No surprises here – these states are ALL rust/snow belt states. Cars being turned in as “clunkers” actually ARE clunkers, replete with the dreaded body cancer.
If you’ve got an Exploder in “fair” to “poor” condition that ain’t worth $4,500 to begin with, what reason do you have to NOT turn it in?
Texans aren’t exactly rushing to the dealership with their cherry 1991 F-350’s, are they?
Minnesota? We’re #1? And by 53 cents?
I’m so proud.
I guess.
—
There’s another dimension to this… to get Cash for Clunkers, you must have the means to buy most of a new car. Are these states in relatively good economic shape? A news item I heard on the radio the other day suggests that the NoDaks are doing surprisingly well, there’s an energy boomlet under way up there in wind generation.
Texans aren’t exactly rushing to the dealership with their cherry 1991 F-350’s, are they?
Looking at that comment makes me wonder if there is data showing which vehicles were most traded in each state.
That would be interesting, I think.
^^^Also as I was told by a friend that lived in North Dakota is that everyone works as in the winter you’d freeze to death in a matter of hours if you didn’t. :-)
Michigan just fourth on the list?
Surprised there is so little overall criticism of this scheme…
dealers are forced to destroy perfectly good cars.
But there are deeper reasons why the scheme is wrong
Presumably it’s to save on oil/gasolene and to lower emissions:
Yet fuel efficient cars effectively means cheaper energy which in turn means they will be used more (instead of, for example, using public transport)
Fuel efficiency is of course an advantage people can consider when buying a car – and can compare with advantages that inefficient cars can have (better acceleration, or greater safety because of greater weight, etc, as well as a probably lower price – or they would be efficient already).
As far as government is concerned, any oil shortage – for geopolitical or economic demand reasons – raises the gasolene price and – guess what – increases demand for fuel-efficient cars anyway, no need to legislate for it.
Another reason is that – as research at Georgia Tech has shown – it is possible to clean emissions of CO2 (and other substances at the same time).
A fuel-neutral emission tax on cars therefore makes more sense:
If it is economical to make – or to fit current- gas-guzzling cars with emission processing then, again, there is no reason for government to try to lower the use of such cars.
Any regulatory measures should therefore focus on emissions, rather than the fuel used, and emission taxation on cars retains consumer choice, while also giving significant government income with the lower sales of high emission cars, income that can go to projects that themselves lower emissions eg. electric car manufacturing subsidies etc.
(Regardless of whether CO2 reduction makes any sense, lowered emissions of course have their own benefit, for all the noxious sulphur etc substances that the emissions also contain)
For more see http://www.ceolas.net/#cc25x
Why all energy efficiency regulation is wrong – from light bulbs to buildings http://www.ceolas.net/#cc2x
Many of those states have a high concentration of SUVs and pickups, so it’s not all that surprising.
Heh….lots of my Republican buddies are taking C4C money.
I guess everyone is against handouts until they are the recipient of one.
Next time someone says that the US doesn’t invest in public transport, you can point to a C4C purchase and say: Yes we do!
-ted
Looking at that comment makes me wonder if there is data showing which vehicles were most traded in each state.
That would be interesting, I think.
I would think the wildly popular pickups of yesteryear would be the most common trade-ins, but then, many pickup owners need these vehicles, and aren’t about to trade in for a shiny new 25-mpg CUV. There will still be a lot, though.
Exploders, Blazers, and Durangos will abound. There are a bazillion mid-late-90s models around, and people who want out of them.
Some V8 barges (GM B/G/K-bodies, Ford Panthers) qualify, but there probably aren’t nearly as many out there.
Maybe a few muscle/sports cars, but these tend to be well-loved by their owners.
Regarding the story pic, are there any LuminaCarlos that actually qualify? Or should we just crush them all on general principle?
Thanks Stephen Teller! very interesting.
NoDaks are doing very well. It’s one of those very practical states where they don’t engage in a lot of smoke & mirrors financial finagling.
I also read that Moldovia is doing very well for similar reasons. Really. I am not making this up. Ithink it was in the NYT in the last 6 weeks or two months.
@Peter Dublin
C4C is not going to reduce the carbon footprint, but not for the reason you are stating. It’s true that with a more efficient car, people may drive more, but the relatinship is not one for one. Peoples’ major driving needs are fairly fixed–to work, to the store, etc., and people are not going to move further away based on more efficiency. If you even more than double efficiency, as my brother did when he junked the Passat for a Prius, you may drive a little more, if money is a limiting factor in how much you drive (it’s definitely not in my brother’s case), but most people are not going to come near doubling their driving. Nor are people all that likely to have switched to public transportation because of fuel costs unless they live in major metropolitan areas with good public transport, and live near the nodes (Boston has reasonably good public transport, but not in the suburb where I live).
Finally, C4C doesn’t mandate that the new cars be all that much more efficient than the old ones. I think you can get away with 22mpg on the new car.
A carbon tax would be a great idea, but right now gas prices are fairly low, and c4c could have encouraged people to get into highly efficient cars, but Pres O’s boyz didn’t take that route–probably because so many detroit cars are not that efficient, except for the Fusion hybrid.
Regarding people who object the CARS programs nonetheless taking advantage of it – look at the tragedy of the commons.
We’re screwed anyway. We’re even more screwed if we don’t take advantage if it makes sense. A co-worker is picking up a new Jetta right now. His clunker is a 300k mile Fleetwood with bumpers that are rust held together by chrome plating and a cracked intake manifold that hadn’t yet got round to catching fire. I guess there is still a chance when they kill the engine. It is unambiguously a clunker.
Next up in his family is a 2 door Blazer with 200K miles. What a lovely vehicle – from the get go I thought it had all the graceful styling of a 4 yard dumpster, just with bigger wheels. That will be replaced with a Focus. Again, the Blazer is a genuine clunker. Getting it off the road is part of highway beautification
One thing that strikes me about the list is that these are states that have, in gross generalizations, fiscally conservative populations. Perhaps people in these state have a greater cash reserve so they can buy a new vehicle, and they are willing to take the plunge if they are getting help from the C4C program.
@krazykarguy
No surprises here – these states are ALL rust/snow belt states. Cars being turned in as “clunkers” actually ARE clunkers, replete with the dreaded body cancer.
Isn’t that backwards? Cash for clunkers means they kill the engine and save the body.
In those states shouldn’t you save the engine and junk the body?
I see worse looking Lumina/Monte Carlos on the road than that one about to be crushed.
On the other hand, yes, they should be salvaged based on principle.
Interesting, KrazyKarGuy!
The data shows that it is is indeed a massive transfer from warm weather states to cold ones. The bottom 12 states are all warm.
I would think Hawaiians and Californians would be pretty mad …
D
If most of the cars sold are fuel sippers, wont the fedgov lose out as far as fuel taxes? Oops…we can raise another tax to compensate. To quote from the 1970s miller lite commercial “I knew this was a bad idea”
@David Dennis,
And just to add on that thought, are not Californians and Hawaiians paying the highest fuel taxes now already?
Cali and Hawaii don’t have the highest fuel taxes, but close to the highest fuel prices. All fuel in Hawaii is imported by ship, and Cali is infested with enviros who won’t allow drilling or new refineries.
I hate to see state rankings divided by population because it skews the results for the most populous states, and three of the four most populous (Cali, Texas and Florida) aren’t listed. For this ranking, I’d rather see division by registrations. Even with that change, the small population states, especially Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire, will still do well in the rankings.
With the exception of Michigan, all of those states rank among the lowest in terms of foreclosure rates and credit card debt per capita.