6 ms·
> 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 lo
by 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 agoMany 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 agoIt'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 agoChances 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.
- jjav 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. The example isn't exaggerated at all. Unless you happen to live on a straight bus line to work, it's going to add many hours to take a bus downtown and then out to the office. Office locations come and go, a house is for the long haul. You're not going to sell and move houses every time you chance jobs.
- tharne 5y ago> That's the world's biggest caveat. Exactly. Not having a car is only a money saver if you place next to zero value on your time and what you can do with it. If I switched to taking public transit to work, the additional childcare costs alone from the increased hours I'd be outside of the house would likely negate any savings I might have otherwise achieved.
- hgomersall 5y agoOften on public transport, you can usefully do far more than you can driving, so it's not entirely wasted. I used to joke I was most productive on a train and so should set up my office on one. Similarly for active transport, you get free exercise.
- itake 5y agoI 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 agoI'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 agoNon-US based city dwellers+ US city dwellers from the few cities that get public transit right-ish, is, in my opinion, the majority here.
- tharne 5y agoLol, 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 agoThat'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 agoI 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 agoI 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]