We have established nothing of the sort. We have, in fact, established that they are paying, adjusted for inflation, what they were paying 40 years ago. SAME PRICE. What has changed is that they cannot afford to pay the same money in three years anymore. Now they need five or six years to pay the SAME PRICE.
You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.
First you say they are paying the same price, then you say that they are paying a higher percentage of their income.
Assuming, arguendo, that real incomes have dropped over the past 40 years, then these people are paying more for the car than they did in 1964. You can say that the price of the car has tracked inflation, but if people are paying a bigger percentage of their income, then they are, in no uncertain terms, paying MORE for a car than they did in 1964.
Assuming, arguendo, that real incomes have dropped over the past 40 years, perhaps we might expect the price of the car to rise faster than inflation if real incomes also rose during the same period.
The long and the short of it is that people are willing to pay a higher percentage of their income to purchase a car now than in 1964 because they get more value. The car is worth more than, say, 5% of your income--it's worth, say, 10% of your income. Why? Because YOU GET MORE! That's the end. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts.
I'm through with this. Besides, it's a moot point. Free trade is here to stay, it ain't going anywhere. For the economic luddities on this thread, better start getting used to it or getting the compound stocked up.