That's a lot of nonsense. When adjusted for inflation and technology, cars are actually much cheaper today than they were in 1970. If you were to build a 1970-vintage automobile today in a mass-production process, you'd probably be able to sell it for about $5,000.
The reason a new car costs more today (in terms of purchasing power of the average U.S. worker) than in 1970 isn't a decline in our standard of living -- it's the exponential growth in high-tech components on these cars. Think of all the things that are standard equipment on cars today that didn't even exist back in 1970. And then add to it the fact that just the computing power in a car today was only available in a mainframe computer back then -- which means that by today's standards your 1970-vintage automobile would have to be a dump truck just to carry the equivalent of today's electronic components.
More free trade nonsense.
You argue that adjusted for inflation the price of a car is cheaper than it was in 1970 then argue that because of more technology they are actually more expensive. Which is it ?
The 1970 vintage car is what is not on the market. The present day one is. If you compare what a VW beetle cost in 1965 with what a Kia costs today, adjusted for inflation it is about the same. If you compare a midsize sedan of 1965 with a midsize sedan of 2005, adjusted for inflation it is about the same. Since by category the price of the car has remained constant, then the variable is the purchasers income which has dropped to the point where a car loan must be 6 years FOR THE SAME MONEY where then it was 3 years.
A $4000 Pontiac Star Chief (1958) would sell for $26,546.00 today.
No matter how you dress the pig, the fact remains that the cost, inflation-adjusted, is about the same.
The electronic doodads replaced actual sheet metal, and there are production efficiencies which have been achieved in the last 50 years. So what?