Originally Posted by
Koyote
I am probably better-informed than you about income and wealth distribution in the US
Great -
apply that knowledge and see where it leads - but do keep in mind that neither "income" nor "wealth" is quite "$300 in the bank someone could spend today"
You seem to think that something should cost a certain amount just because you want it to, because you think it is "fair." The actual cost of producing such bikes doesn't seem to enter into your thinking.
More the exact opposite. I'm quite confident that the prices I'm proposing are achievable, by taking the same means used to achieve the current prices, but applying them to a more suitable design that's simpler and more solid.
The market for new bicycles is fairly competitive
Yet there's a 2x price difference just within the range of budget BSO's.
If it were possible to produce a reliable and durable commuter bike for $250
It is - some of the better BSO's aren't all that terribly far off, yet they come laden with anti-features. Remove those and make what they actually need just a bit better, by making it simpler.
and there was sufficient demand for it
What I've been pointing out consistently through this is that it can't be a unilateral move by any one party, it would take the cooperation of the stores and the customers and community support to retarget from featureitis BSO's to solid, simple budget solutions.
Neither saying "I want to pay X" nor "here's a low-feature solid budget bike" works on its own without the cooperation of the other party; it would really have to be approached from all directions at once: supply, maintenance, and community-based consumer education about what's actually important in a bike (for example, think about the people who've kidnapped share bikes to do various challenge rides, and instead do vlog's about doing them on the $250 budget bike, ones about working on it, etc)
Or we can keep turning resources into short-lived crap.