4 ms·

> cars are what largely keep Americans poor. Which is weird, because (until last year anyway, when used car pricing went crazy) cars were by-far the cheapest m

> cars are what largely keep Americans poor. Which is weird, because (until last year anyway, when used car pricing went crazy) cars were by-far the cheapest major expense an average American has. Most Americans drive, in large part because the car is free money -- the drastic housing savings and occupational/educational/commercial opportunities more than make up for the small amount of cash it costs to own and operate one. Just on rent savings alone, my car pays me to drive it. (The car costs me about $400/month in full TCO, but that car easily saves me $800/month or more just on rent alone, not to mention trips or kids school runs or visiting friends or shopping or so on). And that's not even factoring in that people's time has value, and any alternative form of transit easily double-to-triples the amount of time a given trip takes. > I was able to reduce my monthly expenses by about 20% just by going car free, and I refuse to ever own a car again. That sounds nice, and maybe it's just the midwest in me, but I've never seen a person who can actually save money by not-owning a car. Many people claim as such, but then you dig a little and find out they were already wealthy to begin with, which is the only way they were able to get away with it. (e.g., "you should totally sell your ~$20k car, and with the money you save, you could totally move your family into a $600k-more-expensive half-the-size downtown condo and go car-free. You can just pay a small $50/trip for an Uber whenever you really need that car" -- like, it sounds nice, but the math here doesn't check out at all).

fomine3 5y ago
From what I see on here, I feel car insurance is crazy expensive in the US. I don't know why, maybe same reason as lack of public healthcare?
gr1zzlybe4r 5y ago
Check out the numbers in Chicago - neighborhoods like Avondale, Rogers Park, Uptown, etc. The tradeoff is definitely worth it.
HWR_14 5y ago
I mean, the math totally checks out if you can afford the real estate investment. And I mean that both in terms of assets and willingness/desire to take on the risk associated with real estate in [area]. Well, it checks out depending on the assumed return of the real estate vs. other investments.
dangus 5y ago
I would make the argument that the supposed "cost savings" of owning a car are based on the structural requirement to own one based on American city design, along with hidden subsidies by the taxpayer. Roads are not just funded by usage taxes like gas taxes and tolls, but also by general tax revenue. "Aside from gas taxes and individuals’ expenditures for their own driving, U.S. households bear on average an additional burden of more than $1,100 per year in taxes and other costs imposed by driving." [1] That means, if I don't drive, I'm still paying for the roads and other periphery costs as a taxpayer. The second argument I'd make against cars enabling lower costs is the city planning argument. North America has basically ignored mid-density development in favor of a downtown core + sprawl formula, so if you don't want to own a car or if you want to drive your car less frequently you're limited to a very small portion of the housing market that mostly exists in high cost areas. Building ordinances and zoning laws also contribute to this problem, with parking minimums for homes and businesses making car ownership a guarantee (i.e., if the parking lot is so huge that it's impossible to walk across you're going to drive). Tokyo, for example, maintains a completely flat housing cost over time due to housing policies that encourage housing supply [2], and the Tokyo metropolitan area has much lower car ownership per family than the USA. Finally, it's important to point out that the USA enjoys low gas prices through its currency being the main currency for oil transactions, its own massive quantity of domestic oil production, and rather influential foreign policy. Cars are cheap in the USA because it has the ability to make that choice, but at the same time that choice is relatively unnecessary and wasteful considering how the US is overwhelmingly urban and suburban (i.e., it has enough population density in the places most people live to support a less car-focused development pattern. Sure, people in rural areas need cars, but people in Secaucus, New Jersey need/have cars due to conscious city planning choices). [1][PDF] https://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Who%20Pays%20for%20Roads%20vUS.pdf https://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Who%20Pays%20for... Disclosure: USPIRG is generally biased against highway expansion according to Wikipedia. [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-housing-crisis-in-japan-home-prices-stay-flat-11554210002 https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-housing-crisis-in-japan-ho...
NoSorryCannot 5y ago
The fact that much of the US and similar places around the world are scaled for car travel means this comparison between living with a car and without a car in such a locale is completely distorted. That is, yeah, I think it's the Midwest in you. Cities often have a terrible public transit or pedestrian/bicycle experience because they were built for cars. The alternative is a completely different city and lifestyle.

fomine3 5y ago

From what I see on here, I feel car insurance is crazy expensive in the US. I don't know why, maybe same reason as lack of public healthcare?

gr1zzlybe4r 5y ago

Check out the numbers in Chicago - neighborhoods like Avondale, Rogers Park, Uptown, etc. The tradeoff is definitely worth it.

HWR_14 5y ago

I mean, the math totally checks out if you can afford the real estate investment. And I mean that both in terms of assets and willingness/desire to take on the risk associated with real estate in [area]. Well, it checks out depending on the assumed return of the real estate vs. other investments.

dangus 5y ago

I would make the argument that the supposed "cost savings" of owning a car are based on the structural requirement to own one based on American city design, along with hidden subsidies by the taxpayer. Roads are not just funded by usage taxes like gas taxes and tolls, but also by general tax revenue. "Aside from gas taxes and individuals’ expenditures for their own driving, U.S. households bear on average an additional burden of more than $1,100 per year in taxes and other costs imposed by driving." [1] That means, if I don't drive, I'm still paying for the roads and other periphery costs as a taxpayer. The second argument I'd make against cars enabling lower costs is the city planning argument. North America has basically ignored mid-density development in favor of a downtown core + sprawl formula, so if you don't want to own a car or if you want to drive your car less frequently you're limited to a very small portion of the housing market that mostly exists in high cost areas. Building ordinances and zoning laws also contribute to this problem, with parking minimums for homes and businesses making car ownership a guarantee (i.e., if the parking lot is so huge that it's impossible to walk across you're going to drive). Tokyo, for example, maintains a completely flat housing cost over time due to housing policies that encourage housing supply [2], and the Tokyo metropolitan area has much lower car ownership per family than the USA. Finally, it's important to point out that the USA enjoys low gas prices through its currency being the main currency for oil transactions, its own massive quantity of domestic oil production, and rather influential foreign policy. Cars are cheap in the USA because it has the ability to make that choice, but at the same time that choice is relatively unnecessary and wasteful considering how the US is overwhelmingly urban and suburban (i.e., it has enough population density in the places most people live to support a less car-focused development pattern. Sure, people in rural areas need cars, but people in Secaucus, New Jersey need/have cars due to conscious city planning choices). [1][PDF] https://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Who%20Pays%20for%20Roads%20vUS.pdf https://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Who%20Pays%20for... Disclosure: USPIRG is generally biased against highway expansion according to Wikipedia. [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-housing-crisis-in-japan-home-prices-stay-flat-11554210002 https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-housing-crisis-in-japan-ho...

NoSorryCannot 5y ago

The fact that much of the US and similar places around the world are scaled for car travel means this comparison between living with a car and without a car in such a locale is completely distorted. That is, yeah, I think it's the Midwest in you. Cities often have a terrible public transit or pedestrian/bicycle experience because they were built for cars. The alternative is a completely different city and lifestyle.