4 ms·
If you followed his advice and not bought a house you would have had 2 less emergencies. Also, renting in the city you would have had no need for a car and thus
by mberning 11y ago
If you followed his advice and not bought a house you would have had 2 less emergencies. Also, renting in the city you would have had no need for a car and thus 0 emergencies.
- lawpoop 11y ago"The City" being Manhattan or perhaps Chicago, the only place sin America where we have usable public transportation.
- eropple 11y agoBoston/Cambridge/Brookline, Atlanta, Seattle...
- Swizec 11y agoSan Francisco is very bikeable/longboardable/electricgizmoable. Source: I don't have a car, but I do have a motorized longboard.
- ghaff 11y agoDepending on lifestyle and place of employment, being carless without a lot of sacrifices isn't necessarily limited to New York and Chicago. I know people in Boston and San Francisco without cars who use some combination of public transportation, Uber/taxis, Zipcar, and conventional rentals. That said, it's somewhere between inconvenient and very difficult in many places--including urban ones.
- lawpoop 11y ago> public transportation, Uber/taxis, Zipcar, and conventional rentals That doesn't add up to something more expensive than a car? I was in ny recently, and a train ticket on the LIRR cost ~20 round trip. That's $600/month. But, it's better overall because of the traffic to and in the city.
- ghaff 11y agoWell, somewhere like NY you also have to consider the cost of storing the car. You live in a dense city and transportation tends to be expensive one way or the other. It really depends on a whole host of factors both related to the economics and the convenience. There are a few cities that tend to be particularly car unfriendly. Many where cars are essentially a requirement. And some that can go either way depending upon your lifestyle, where you work, and a variety of individual preferences. But figure that a car is going to cost some X thousands of dollars a year plus whatever it costs you to park it. (The government rate is $0.57 or so per mile though that may not be that directly applicable to car vs. other transportation analysis.)
- dionidium 11y agoThose are the only cities with ubiquitous rail transit. But you can do it in lots of other places if you insist on it or if you don't feel like you're above riding on buses, the latter of which are available in basically every major U.S. city.
- lawpoop 11y agoI live in Columbus, and I looked at a bus route to work, and it was about 1.5 hours one way, with a transfer. For me, it's a 20 minute drive to work. Also there is not service to/from most of the suburbs.
- tyrust 11y agoI can't tell if this is parody or a serious encouragement to conform to a specific lifestyle and thus remove all life's problems.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- jerf 11y agoIt was also advice for Millenials. I don't know who seibelj is, so I have no ability to judge whether a house is or is not a good idea. I own mine. It is, for me, where I am physically and personally and professionally, a better move than renting. But then, I'm not really a Millenial. (Born 1978, some stretch "Millenial" back to the 1980s, but in life trajectory I'm more "X" than "Millenial". Though frankly I identify with neither.)
- irishcoffee 11y agoPretty sure he still had emergencies. You're suggesting he just wouldn't need to pay for them if he was renting. I'd personally rather pay an extra 20-40 bucks a month for something like BGE Home appliances/HVAC warranty than an extra 30% a month in rent relative to the cost of the mortgage. Oh, and gain equity. And rent the same house to someone else in a few years, have them pay my mortgage, and make an extra 30% off the top from them. Renting isn't stupid. Buying isn't either, despite how popular that notion seems around here.