I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the reasons the modern car has more parts and is not mechanically simple is not the boogeyman of regulations (although I suppose it could have caused some things like say seat belt alerts and airbags) but rather feature creep in the automotive industry, and computerization of everything.

This is a clear example of regulation making cars more complex! In the 70s, there were no crumple zones, airbags, backup cameras, traction control, lighting intensity requirements, or a whole host of other things that are mandated today. Those things do cost money.

That said, this is also a clear shift in consumer demand too - a 1970s $3500 car is going to be a sedan, small, and pretty featureless. Compare that to a $20k Corolla today - which is the same proportion of median income that the $3500 car was in the 70s. It's larger, more reliable, safer, and has a whole bunch more features.

The people who dislike something will see it everywhere and blame it for everything. Regulation especially is very versatile as a scapegoat.

Cars are much more reliable now than they were in the 1970s, and they can drive more miles.

They have to because services are distributed and it's super expensive and disruptive to sell an owned-residence.

Do you have any sources for that claim? Anecdotally I believe that to be entirely false, but if there are studies you’ve read that back you up I’d love to read them.

Here is one JD Power survey although you'd probably have to dig to find numbers over a longer period of time.

In my experience, it's clearly true overall. In the 1970s, say, you're probably looking at a car in the snow belt lasting 5 years because of rust and 100,000 miles was generally considered very high mileage.

That's because the majority of cars bought in the snow belt during the 70's were American made, and US car quality was terrible during this period.

My family tended to have European cars and they were just as bad.

An example of this is the change to automatic transmission from manual has increased costs. People could have voted with their dollars but manual is (unfortunately) on its way out in America. In a way, they have as it seems vast majority of people buying new cars want automatic but the segment who prefer manual were unable to convince others to buy manual.

This also came with a caveat as automatic is more expensive to manufacture and repair.

I mean it’s just not something most people find appealing. Shifting gears. I’d rather have the car handle that.

What is the pro of manual transmission? I used to have those cars in the EU and thought it was just an annoying extra thing I have to pay attention to when driving.

> What is the pro of manual transmission?

1. enjoyment

2. keeps you awake

3. more reliable

4. more control in stuck or slippery conditions

5. thieves don't know how to drive them

6. the kids are terrified of it and won't ask to borrow it

7. can push start the car

8. can restart the car while moving if the engine stalls

9. can coast

10. can drop the clutch and get off the line faster when drag racing against some teen at the traffic light

11. get to enjoy double clutching and mastering heel-toeing and pretending you're an F1 driver

12. The Cat cannot reach the clutch pedal, frustrating its plans for putting me in the trunk and depositing me in the Kat Fud Factory

13. you can nurse the car home and to the shop with a broken gearbox. With an automatic, it's a tow truck every time

14. the sheer joy of a winding mountain road, a powerful V8, picking the gear for the next turn, managing the traction and engine speed, etc.

The main thing is that manufacturing it is cheaper than automatic and thus the cost to buy it is cheaper. In a longer term, it will also save money on repairs being neeeded.

I've paid more to get a stick :-)

Housing is also more heavily regulated today. Various places have different regulations for hurricanes, earthquakes, and other things.