6 ms·

> But going into debt for a depreciating asset like a car is a bad idea, yes. This is just as stupid as: "But going into debt for a depreciating asset like a

> But going into debt for a depreciating asset like a car is a bad idea, yes. This is just as stupid as: "But going into debt for a depreciating asset like a computer is a bad idea, yes." They are both investments in potential tools. For many, an investment in a car can ultimately be cheaper than most other modes of transportation. Just like how companies finance their data centers with debt. Of course, it does not mean any car. Hell, it does not even imply a new car. But the advice of using debt to finance a car is always a bad idea is just patently false.

quxbar 5y ago
Not to mention even crappy used cars appreciated over the past two years.
sofixa 5y ago
> For many, an investment in a car can ultimately be cheaper than most other modes of transportation. That's a joke, right? It's entirely dependent on one's location, and i think for more people here on HN the inverse would be true ( I'm assuming the majority of users here live in or around big cities, where tech was traditionally concentrated). In well developed big cities ( so excluding the many failures at urban design and planning in the US) public transit is at least decent, and i don't think there are any places around the world where owning a car is cheaper than paying for public transit ( with the caveat that depending on how you measure the time spent could alter that)
- CPLX 5y ago
  > i don't think there are any places around the world where owning a car is cheaper than paying for public transit ( with the caveat that depending on how you measure the time spent could alter that) That's the world's biggest caveat. Investment in a modest car that stops you from spending 3 hours each way commuting over 4 separate bus routes from exurban home to exurban job is about as high a return on money as you're ever going to see. Not to mention grocery shopping kids and whatever else. There are painfully few places in the U.S. where this isn't true. I prefer your model and I live in one of those places (Brooklyn) but let's be honest here about how the world actually works.
  - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
    >Investment in a modest car that stops you from spending 3 hours each way commuting over 4 separate bus routes from exurban home to exurban job is about as high a return on money as you're ever going to see. I know your example is exaggerated but even so making decisions about where to live and work like that is on a parallel with making poor decisions about your finances.
    - shigawire 5y ago
      Many people have circumstances that don't allow them to choose the exact place they live. Also living in less desirable areas often has a lower cost of living - offsetting the cost of a car.
      - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
        It's definitely a trade off, in general the further out you are the bigger house you can buy. I strongly suspect people don't make the right tradeoff. The emotional draw of the big house overwhelms any thoughts about the long and expensive commute.
    - tharne 5y ago
      > I know your example is exaggerated but even so making decisions about where to live and work like that is on a parallel with making poor decisions about your finances. Except for the fact that non-terrible housing in U.S. cities comes at a premium, and in the U.S. the majority of jobs are now in the suburbs, not the cities.
    - CPLX 5y ago
      Chances are pretty high that living further from the city with a car is more cost effective than living in a city near transit with no car for a lot of people and jobs. That, of course, is why people do it. I wish it wasn't true, I wish things were like Switzerland where every remote mountain town still has fast and effective connections to the national transit system. But they aren't, this is America.
    - 5y ago
- itake 5y ago
  I live in Seattle. To get to work in Bellevue, I have 1.15hr commute by bus + walking. When I lived in SF, I had a 1.5-2hr Caltrain/bike commute to Palo Alto. Missing a train would cost me 45 min. A car getting stuck in the tracks or a suicide would cost 1-2 hours. A car currently saves me 2hrs, enabling me to have more time to cook healthy food myself and visit the gym with cadence. Imho, a car pays me in dividends. I could live closer to work, but it’s difficult to socialize in those areas.
  - majewsky 5y ago
    I'm guessing GP was thinking of non-US residents when making their claim (although I'm very skeptical of the implication that non-US-based citydwellers make up the majority of HN).
    - sofixa 5y ago
      Non-US based city dwellers+ US city dwellers from the few cities that get public transit right-ish, is, in my opinion, the majority here.
      - itake 5y ago
        What cities in the US get public transit right-ish? Nyc and ??
        cyberge99 5y ago
        DC and Atlanta just off the top of my head.
        itake 5y ago
        Atlanta is only good if you actually live near a MARTA line.
- tharne 5y ago
  Lol, you clearly don't live in the U.S. With the exception of Manhattan, and some parts of D.C. and SF, no car = no job.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    That's why i said that most cities in the US are massive urban design failures. NYC, DC, SF have mostly decent transit, and I'm willing to bet there are more Americans here on HN who live around there than outside of around there. When you add the people from European or Asian or African cities with good transit, i presume we're in the majority.
    - tharne 5y ago
      > NYC, DC, SF have mostly decent transit, and I'm willing to bet there are more Americans here on HN who live around there than outside of around there. I'd take that bet. America is a big place and unlike Europe, our population is not concentrated in one or two major cities. There are huge numbers of tech jobs in places most people outside the U.S. have never heard of. Just as a for instance, there are over 15 cities in the U.S. larger than San Francisco, like Houston, TX or Jacksonville, FL. I'm not going to argue about urban design, I agree the U.S. could do much better on that front. But for now, a car is an absolute necessity for the vast majority of Americans, including Americans who work in tech.
  - blaser-waffle 5y ago
    I made it around just fine in Seattle, Vancouver, DC (Tenlytown), and Nashville without a car. Bikes and ubers. Everywhere but Nashville was pretty easy to be a person, and Nashville was a PITA at times but doable.
    - jjav 5y ago
      > Bikes and ubers. Ubers are cars, just with an extremely high markup. I had a coworker so proud of not spending money on car. So he commuted on Uber. Over $50/day. That's over $1000/month!
- bratwurst3000 5y ago
  I live in a big city with excellent public transportation. But I need 1h to the workplace with them and 30 min with the car. An monthly tickets cost around 80€ here. The car with gas assurance etc 300€. I win around 10h time if i take the car … so 10h*my hourly rate … its a win win for me, sorry public transport ;)
- jjav 5y ago
  > That's a joke, right? Certainly not a joke. Unless you live in Manhattan, or happen to luck into a house within walking distance of your job (ignoring pandemic WFH), then in order to maintain a lucrative career you need to get to work, in time, without spending most of your day waiting for buses. That means investing in a car. A car by itself is of course a terrible non-investment. But if it brings home that high salary, it becomes an investment.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
Swenrekcah 5y ago
I think you may be missing the qualifier that actually makes this advice true. >But going into debt for a depreciating asset like a car is a bad idea, yes. It's important to not go into debt for frivoulous consumption. If you buy an old car, it actually doesn't depreciate very much as long as it's kept in working order. The same with a computer, if I go into debt to get the new M1 Max because I need a computer to code, that's not very smart. I can code just fine on a $300 used ThinkPad, and I can travel just fine on a $4000 used car. If I'm unfortunate enough to really need either of those for income geneartion but can't afford it, then it makes sense to borrow for it, but only to get the minimum you need to get the work done. Of course it's much more fun to get a newish F150 and the latest Apple gadget on a 96 month loan...
- CPLX 5y ago
  The problem is that qualifier isn't correct. The test needs another qualifier, it should be a depreciating, non productive asset. Many assets that are incredibly productive depreciate. If you're making a living as a house painter you definitely want to invest in paint brushes rather than smearing the paint all over the walls with your hands. The fact that the brushes wear out pretty quickly is irrelevant. Same goes for an auto mechanic buying sets of wrenches, and possibly the developer getting a much faster computer that increases their productivity. Fact is that owning a reliable car is a prerequisite to many jobs and living situations. The advice is usually given around consumption type "assets". Like don't go into debt to buy a jetski or golf clubs or something. It's a mistake to transfer that logic to productive assets.
  - toxik 5y ago
    You don’t take a loan to buy paint brushes, you may take a loan to bootstrap a painting business - the business is not depreciating. I agree though, you’d take a loan to buy eg a CNC mill, and you’d expect it to depreciate. On the other hand, you could buy a CNC mill second hand and avoid the large initial depreciation.
  - Swenrekcah 5y ago
    Yes that's correct of course, I have always only considered this as personal advice, not a buisness advice.

quxbar 5y ago

Not to mention even crappy used cars appreciated over the past two years.

sofixa 5y ago

> For many, an investment in a car can ultimately be cheaper than most other modes of transportation. That's a joke, right? It's entirely dependent on one's location, and i think for more people here on HN the inverse would be true ( I'm assuming the majority of users here live in or around big cities, where tech was traditionally concentrated). In well developed big cities ( so excluding the many failures at urban design and planning in the US) public transit is at least decent, and i don't think there are any places around the world where owning a car is cheaper than paying for public transit ( with the caveat that depending on how you measure the time spent could alter that)

CPLX 5y ago
> i don't think there are any places around the world where owning a car is cheaper than paying for public transit ( with the caveat that depending on how you measure the time spent could alter that) That's the world's biggest caveat. Investment in a modest car that stops you from spending 3 hours each way commuting over 4 separate bus routes from exurban home to exurban job is about as high a return on money as you're ever going to see. Not to mention grocery shopping kids and whatever else. There are painfully few places in the U.S. where this isn't true. I prefer your model and I live in one of those places (Brooklyn) but let's be honest here about how the world actually works.
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  >Investment in a modest car that stops you from spending 3 hours each way commuting over 4 separate bus routes from exurban home to exurban job is about as high a return on money as you're ever going to see. I know your example is exaggerated but even so making decisions about where to live and work like that is on a parallel with making poor decisions about your finances.
  - shigawire 5y ago
    Many people have circumstances that don't allow them to choose the exact place they live. Also living in less desirable areas often has a lower cost of living - offsetting the cost of a car.
    - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
      It's definitely a trade off, in general the further out you are the bigger house you can buy. I strongly suspect people don't make the right tradeoff. The emotional draw of the big house overwhelms any thoughts about the long and expensive commute.
  - tharne 5y ago
    > I know your example is exaggerated but even so making decisions about where to live and work like that is on a parallel with making poor decisions about your finances. Except for the fact that non-terrible housing in U.S. cities comes at a premium, and in the U.S. the majority of jobs are now in the suburbs, not the cities.
  - CPLX 5y ago
    Chances are pretty high that living further from the city with a car is more cost effective than living in a city near transit with no car for a lot of people and jobs. That, of course, is why people do it. I wish it wasn't true, I wish things were like Switzerland where every remote mountain town still has fast and effective connections to the national transit system. But they aren't, this is America.
  - 5y ago
itake 5y ago
I live in Seattle. To get to work in Bellevue, I have 1.15hr commute by bus + walking. When I lived in SF, I had a 1.5-2hr Caltrain/bike commute to Palo Alto. Missing a train would cost me 45 min. A car getting stuck in the tracks or a suicide would cost 1-2 hours. A car currently saves me 2hrs, enabling me to have more time to cook healthy food myself and visit the gym with cadence. Imho, a car pays me in dividends. I could live closer to work, but it’s difficult to socialize in those areas.
- majewsky 5y ago
  I'm guessing GP was thinking of non-US residents when making their claim (although I'm very skeptical of the implication that non-US-based citydwellers make up the majority of HN).
  - sofixa 5y ago
    Non-US based city dwellers+ US city dwellers from the few cities that get public transit right-ish, is, in my opinion, the majority here.
    - itake 5y ago
      What cities in the US get public transit right-ish? Nyc and ??
      - cyberge99 5y ago
        DC and Atlanta just off the top of my head.
        itake 5y ago
        Atlanta is only good if you actually live near a MARTA line.
tharne 5y ago
Lol, you clearly don't live in the U.S. With the exception of Manhattan, and some parts of D.C. and SF, no car = no job.
- sofixa 5y ago
  That's why i said that most cities in the US are massive urban design failures. NYC, DC, SF have mostly decent transit, and I'm willing to bet there are more Americans here on HN who live around there than outside of around there. When you add the people from European or Asian or African cities with good transit, i presume we're in the majority.
  - tharne 5y ago
    > NYC, DC, SF have mostly decent transit, and I'm willing to bet there are more Americans here on HN who live around there than outside of around there. I'd take that bet. America is a big place and unlike Europe, our population is not concentrated in one or two major cities. There are huge numbers of tech jobs in places most people outside the U.S. have never heard of. Just as a for instance, there are over 15 cities in the U.S. larger than San Francisco, like Houston, TX or Jacksonville, FL. I'm not going to argue about urban design, I agree the U.S. could do much better on that front. But for now, a car is an absolute necessity for the vast majority of Americans, including Americans who work in tech.
- blaser-waffle 5y ago
  I made it around just fine in Seattle, Vancouver, DC (Tenlytown), and Nashville without a car. Bikes and ubers. Everywhere but Nashville was pretty easy to be a person, and Nashville was a PITA at times but doable.
  - jjav 5y ago
    > Bikes and ubers. Ubers are cars, just with an extremely high markup. I had a coworker so proud of not spending money on car. So he commuted on Uber. Over $50/day. That's over $1000/month!
bratwurst3000 5y ago
I live in a big city with excellent public transportation. But I need 1h to the workplace with them and 30 min with the car. An monthly tickets cost around 80€ here. The car with gas assurance etc 300€. I win around 10h time if i take the car … so 10h*my hourly rate … its a win win for me, sorry public transport ;)
jjav 5y ago
> That's a joke, right? Certainly not a joke. Unless you live in Manhattan, or happen to luck into a house within walking distance of your job (ignoring pandemic WFH), then in order to maintain a lucrative career you need to get to work, in time, without spending most of your day waiting for buses. That means investing in a car. A car by itself is of course a terrible non-investment. But if it brings home that high salary, it becomes an investment.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

Swenrekcah 5y ago

I think you may be missing the qualifier that actually makes this advice true. >But going into debt for a depreciating asset like a car is a bad idea, yes. It's important to not go into debt for frivoulous consumption. If you buy an old car, it actually doesn't depreciate very much as long as it's kept in working order. The same with a computer, if I go into debt to get the new M1 Max because I need a computer to code, that's not very smart. I can code just fine on a $300 used ThinkPad, and I can travel just fine on a $4000 used car. If I'm unfortunate enough to really need either of those for income geneartion but can't afford it, then it makes sense to borrow for it, but only to get the minimum you need to get the work done. Of course it's much more fun to get a newish F150 and the latest Apple gadget on a 96 month loan...

CPLX 5y ago
The problem is that qualifier isn't correct. The test needs another qualifier, it should be a depreciating, non productive asset. Many assets that are incredibly productive depreciate. If you're making a living as a house painter you definitely want to invest in paint brushes rather than smearing the paint all over the walls with your hands. The fact that the brushes wear out pretty quickly is irrelevant. Same goes for an auto mechanic buying sets of wrenches, and possibly the developer getting a much faster computer that increases their productivity. Fact is that owning a reliable car is a prerequisite to many jobs and living situations. The advice is usually given around consumption type "assets". Like don't go into debt to buy a jetski or golf clubs or something. It's a mistake to transfer that logic to productive assets.
- toxik 5y ago
  You don’t take a loan to buy paint brushes, you may take a loan to bootstrap a painting business - the business is not depreciating. I agree though, you’d take a loan to buy eg a CNC mill, and you’d expect it to depreciate. On the other hand, you could buy a CNC mill second hand and avoid the large initial depreciation.
- Swenrekcah 5y ago
  Yes that's correct of course, I have always only considered this as personal advice, not a buisness advice.