3 ms·

This argument ignores tail risks. Sometimes that 5% max capacity usage is something that turns out to be incredibly important and not substitutable short term.

This argument ignores tail risks. Sometimes that 5% max capacity usage is something that turns out to be incredibly important and not substitutable short term. I'll be a lot of people are regretting not building some slack capacity into their housing and transportation right now, when public transit is potentially dangerous and the whole family might be working from home thanks to COVID.

whoisburbansky 6y ago
This is a really good point; the cost of excess capacity is effectively just an insurance policy that you buy ahead of time, lump sum, one time payment. I'm not sure you could replicate this with an actual insurance policy to collectivize the risk and reduce costs, at least not with the example of housing in a pandemic in mind.
quicklime 6y ago
How much slack capacity is reasonable though? Sure, it's good to have a non-zero amount. But that doesn't mean that the opposite extreme - having 20x the capacity that you actually use - is the right way to go. If the best place is anywhere in the middle of those two extremes (e.g. to have 5x the capacity), it won't be possible to achieve while everything is based on individual private ownership. We'd have to share, and build the slack capacity into the shared pool of vehicles.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- gpm 6y ago
  This depends on the cost of the item, the risk associated with not having it, the cost associated with renting it, how wealthy you are, and so on and so forth. No single number makes any sense. A plunger can probably expect <0.1% use of it's capacity. But being stuck without one really sucks, the cost to rent is... once you account for the spent traveling back and forth would be higher than the cost of buying, and as a result literally everyone just buys them. On the flip side a 20 year old fast food worker with $0 in their bank account probably just plain can't afford to have 5x the housing capacity they actually use. That would bankrupt them. So they just don't do it.
chickenpotpie 6y ago
Oof this hits close to home. Moved right before COVID started and got an apartment right next to my job. Figured I didn't need space for an office. My commute is short and I can just use the apartment common areas if I need to wfh. 1 month later and I'm wfh full time in a studio apartment and my desk is in my closet because I have no space and the common areas are closed.
gkop 6y ago
Example: you have one or more larger pets and live in an earthquake zone. Owning a car leaves you with a chance to safely evacuate in time.
- asdff 6y ago
  Roads are not safe to be on during earthquakes. During the Northridge earthquake overpasses collapsed and gas lines below road surfaces exploded into fireballs. You won't have any notice to do much of anything when the quake hits. If you live in an area where a tsunami is a risk after an earthquake, you should walk on foot to higher ground.
kelnos 6y ago
It's easy to say that, seeing how difficult COVID has been for many people, but should we really be optimizing for what is likely a once-in-a-lifetime event?

whoisburbansky 6y ago

This is a really good point; the cost of excess capacity is effectively just an insurance policy that you buy ahead of time, lump sum, one time payment. I'm not sure you could replicate this with an actual insurance policy to collectivize the risk and reduce costs, at least not with the example of housing in a pandemic in mind.

quicklime 6y ago

How much slack capacity is reasonable though? Sure, it's good to have a non-zero amount. But that doesn't mean that the opposite extreme - having 20x the capacity that you actually use - is the right way to go. If the best place is anywhere in the middle of those two extremes (e.g. to have 5x the capacity), it won't be possible to achieve while everything is based on individual private ownership. We'd have to share, and build the slack capacity into the shared pool of vehicles.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
gpm 6y ago
This depends on the cost of the item, the risk associated with not having it, the cost associated with renting it, how wealthy you are, and so on and so forth. No single number makes any sense. A plunger can probably expect <0.1% use of it's capacity. But being stuck without one really sucks, the cost to rent is... once you account for the spent traveling back and forth would be higher than the cost of buying, and as a result literally everyone just buys them. On the flip side a 20 year old fast food worker with $0 in their bank account probably just plain can't afford to have 5x the housing capacity they actually use. That would bankrupt them. So they just don't do it.

chickenpotpie 6y ago

Oof this hits close to home. Moved right before COVID started and got an apartment right next to my job. Figured I didn't need space for an office. My commute is short and I can just use the apartment common areas if I need to wfh. 1 month later and I'm wfh full time in a studio apartment and my desk is in my closet because I have no space and the common areas are closed.

gkop 6y ago

Example: you have one or more larger pets and live in an earthquake zone. Owning a car leaves you with a chance to safely evacuate in time.

asdff 6y ago
Roads are not safe to be on during earthquakes. During the Northridge earthquake overpasses collapsed and gas lines below road surfaces exploded into fireballs. You won't have any notice to do much of anything when the quake hits. If you live in an area where a tsunami is a risk after an earthquake, you should walk on foot to higher ground.

kelnos 6y ago

It's easy to say that, seeing how difficult COVID has been for many people, but should we really be optimizing for what is likely a once-in-a-lifetime event?