4 ms·
> But they make no sense at all for durable goods that can last for years without significant upgrades, like cars. It makes complete sense if you see the downs
by asplake 5y ago
> But they make no sense at all for durable goods that can last for years without significant upgrades, like cars.
It makes complete sense if you see the downsides of ownership outweighing the upsides. You just have to separate the thing, ownership of the thing, and the job that it does.
If you derive some value just from owning a car that’s fine, but if its job is to get you from A to B, renting and Uber can both be valid options over buying. The three options aren’t even mutually exclusive!
- pdonis 5y ago> if its job is to get you from A to B, renting and Uber can both be valid options over buying For some people, perhaps. But you give up a lot of flexibility when you give up ownership. It's not just a matter of "the job" the thing does; transportation is not a single "job", it's an enabler for many, many different "jobs". And if you don't own any means of transportation, your ability to do all those things is dependent on some other entity, probably a faceless corporation that does not care whether you can get from A to B or not, it only cares about whether it can make money. Or, in the case of public transportation, a government in which your personal interest is rounding error compared to the powerful interests that influence what the government does. It may seem to you that in your personal situation, services like renting and Uber, or public transportation, are there whenever you need them and trusting that that will always be the case seems like a good deal. But historically, deals like that have a way of going sideways when you least expect it and can least afford it. At the very least, it's a good idea to always have a plan B in mind.