It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Chevy Volt the car for the 1%

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 10:00 AM
Average income of a Chevy Volt buyer has been reported to be $175,000 a year.

Latest tax credit for buying a Chevy Volt has risen to $10,000.

So basically, the Chevy Volt is a car for the 1%, being subsidized by the 99%.

The 2012 Chevy Volt, at right around $40,000 before tax credits, is not a cheap ride by any means. AOL Autos now reports that the average Volt buyer thus far makes $175,000 per year.

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 10:04 AM
Don't worry.

The fuel economy will be terrible.
Some people have reviewed them here in the UK and are suprissed with the low fuel economy figures.

I cant help but think some of these 'green' cars are a joke.
Take the Fiat 500 'Twinair' for example. (I am not sure if anyone can buy these in the USA yet).
Lots of owners are complaining of poor fuel economy figures.

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 10:19 AM
The rich don't want a electric car they don't have to worry about paying for gas. they will buy one of those super fast gas guzzling european cars.

So just who is going to buy a Chevy volt. not most of the 1%

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 10:28 AM
Hang on hang on hang on...

You think the median income for the top 1% of owners is anywhere near $175,000/year...

the top 1 percent of American households had a minimum income of $516,633 in 2010


Seems to me that $175,000 would be squarely in the 99%.

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 10:31 AM
reply to post by Carseller4

The thing about the Volt is that it's, in scientific and business terms, a functional prototype... That is, it an
investment, a real life test in a completely undeveloped field... If a CHINESE company, for example, garners
the majority of patents on the future on battery technology, the US and its business concerns could potentially
loose TRILLIONS of dollars. Is it a good investment? It is leads to a bunch of US held patents, yes, it is
probably a good investment. Should WE pay for it... no... the government could utilize loans, not giveaways.

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 10:37 AM
I agree with youdidntseeme. It says everage.. So that means theres some lower, some higher.. And the 1% make boatloads more. The car for the 1% is a G6 private jet. Or a helicoptor.. The volt is on 48k with all the upgrades..

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 10:42 AM
Where are we going to get all the electricity to charge these cars...nuclear power?
That seems to working out well...

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 10:43 AM
reply to post by Carseller4

I've been intrigued by the electric and hybrid car proposition for a while.

My suspicion, and I'm afraid I lack the time to back this up academically, is that beyond even the technical and practical hurdles that have still not been resolved enough (battery cost, lifecycle, ownership, depreciation, resilience to cold, etc...) there will inevitably be a massive question that I rarely seen discussed:

How exactly could the world make these vehicles economically in very large quantities (beyond the marginal), given the increased list of (expensive) resources they need for battery, motor, wiring, including copper, and Rare Earth minerals?

They are simultaneously competing for those exact same resources with massive growth in demand from the energy, computing and military industries, worldwide. Replacing combustion engines, for the masses, with rare-earth-laced, copper-wire-filled cars now - really?

I also propose that for the time being, those questions are harder for any manufacturer outside China to answer with any great confidence or strategic integrity (Iam aware that the West has BEGUN to address some of that, look up my thread if you want more pointers on that).

The press still seem to have focused on the practical ownership issues. Although there is obviously merit in that, it seems to be a dialogue that the manufacturers and governments seem more willing to enter into than getting into any nitty-gritty about where exactly they will secure (and I mean secure) enough resources to 'complete the job' for anything that could be honestly be interpreted as 'for the masses'.

Until then, as you say, I think we can only expect a continuation of this happy little discourse between the governments, manufacturers and a carefully controlled volume of users banging on about how well they are doing and what progress they have made, but you're right, the proof is in the (sales) figures, oh - and the depreciation figures.
edit on 15-2-2012 by curioustype because: typo/spelling

edit on 15-2-2012 by curioustype because: typo spelling

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 10:52 AM
reply to post by BABYBULL24

Yes, that's right, we need massive amounts of copper, REE's, and insanely dangerous (IMO) nuclear energy (or mostly dirty alternatives for most of the world) plus shedloads of extra electricity-grid distribution infrastructure AS WELL as the extra motors/batteries (also not particularly 'clean'/green to make/manage the lifecycle of) for our hundreds of millions of new electric cars.

Don't worry though, our great leaders have really sorted this all out, amicably, and we will all be driving clean/green and electric vehicles within say, 5 years....maybe.

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:08 AM
reply to post by Carseller4

Not even close.

Way to be biased.

Do you use the same distortions to sell cars to others?

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:09 AM

Originally posted by BABYBULL24
Where are we going to get all the electricity to charge these cars...nuclear power?
That seems to working out well...

Well if this country were what it was 100 years ago, we would shift our entire
R&D and manufacturing into renewables before the rest of the world does it
first. Because we will not, is exactly why the success of the last 100 years
will not be repeated, someone else will do it and reap the rewards for

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 09:14 PM
My bet most of the nay sayers ridiculing the Chevy Volt are people who have never really created anything. Developing new ideas is hard - very hard. An the first couple of shots out of the box probably really do leave something to be desired. The Wright bros first plane used wing warping for years to control direction. Pretty crude and ineffective way to control an airplane. Curtis came up with the simple idea of ailerons and pretty soon (really just a few years later) we were able to send aircraft into space. How many people looked at Wrights plane and said "hell you can't steer the damn thing what good is it". How many people said that an honest attempt at improving an electric car. I can't use that electric cars suck. The idea is to cheer innovation not spit on it.

top topics


log in