4 ms·

> You’re telling me a truck buyer won’t have, even once, a case where he actually needs it? No, that's not what I am saying at all. What I'm saying is that the

> You’re telling me a truck buyer won’t have, even once, a case where he actually needs it? No, that's not what I am saying at all. What I'm saying is that the majority of people would be better off if they bought a smaller/cheaper/more fuel efficient car and using those savings to rent a truck for the occasional need. > It’s the same reason people buy insurance. Not at all. People buy insurance as hedge against catastrophic losses. They are totally rational, and the cost of insurance is correlated with actual risk, i.e, a 25 yo will pay less health insurance than a 50yo, so it is not like there is a opportunity cost curve here. > especially with tax advantages for depreciation. You can also rent and deduct it as a business expense. > Also, this reeks of the spirit of “you’ll own nothing and be happy. On the contrary, this is the same advice that really wealthy people will give you, because they know that there are better uses for their capital than buying things they don't need.

gjsman-1000 3y ago
> What I'm saying is that the majority of people would be better off if they bought a smaller/cheaper/more fuel efficient car and using those savings to rent a truck for the occasional need. What gave you the authority and moral credibility, over the perspective of people voting with their wallets, to make that assertion? I would think the people who are actually spending their money would be better at knowing what they need, than internet commentators who are not. It would be like if I made the unfounded assertion that almost all programmers would be better off on Mac. And most that think a Mac is unsuitable are in denial.
- rglullis 3y ago
  > What gave you the authority and moral credibility I lived in an US suburb (Natick, West Mass). I lived in the city center of two American cities (Boston, NYC) for almost 5 years. I'm living in a large European city (Berlin) for 10+ years. Aside from the suburbs, I never had the "need" to have my own car to do anything. Public transportation and biking were the main modes of transportation, but I never restrained myself for getting a taxi or a ZipCar for the occasional longer trip. It's not about being "anti-car". The thing is that I have actual data and I can tell you from actual experience: the majority of people living in large urban centers will be better off if they don't have a car, let alone a truck. > over the perspective of people voting with their wallets. People "voting" with their wallets is not a reliable measure when the ballot does not have all the actual viable candidates. People started buying SUVs and trucks in North America not because they are the obvious superior alternative, but because car makers started removing the other alternatives from the market for not being as profitable. > I would think the people who are actually spending their money would be better at knowing what they need, than internet commentators who are not. In the US, trucks were almost 80% of all auto sales in 2023 [0]. Are you really willing to defend the position that the majority of people bought them because of "need"? [0]: https://finmasters.com/car-sales-statistics/ https://finmasters.com/car-sales-statistics/
randomdata 3y ago
> people would be better off if they bought a smaller/cheaper/more fuel efficient car and using those savings to rent a truck for the occasional need. I don't know, it is hard to square the depreciation on cars. I bought both a car and a truck around a decade ago. The car is now worthless. The truck is still worth about what I paid for it. The deprecation cost alone on that car has exceeded the cost of operating the truck over its lifetime thus far. Trucks are the most popular type of vehicle around these parts because they are, frankly, cheaper to operate in most cases. Certainly you can buy junkers that have already had their depreciation fully realized, but that is not a free lunch, it's just a different trade. Depreciation isn't some magical force. You're trading something for the lower initial cost, such as your time. If you have the money, money is no doubt what you will be most willing to part with. The other things you could trade are quite likely more valuable.
- rglullis 3y ago
  The value you are "keeping" on the truck could also be seen as value that you are not investing somewhere else.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - randomdata 3y ago
    Of course. Who has a vehicle without considering the opportunity cost? There is no reliably chosen investment I know of that provides ROI anywhere close to what my vehicles facilitate, though. It is possible you could win the lottery investing elsewhere, but that is pretty high risk. The vehicles provide decent, steady returns. But it is clear that trucks are cheaper than cars.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]

gjsman-1000 3y ago

> What I'm saying is that the majority of people would be better off if they bought a smaller/cheaper/more fuel efficient car and using those savings to rent a truck for the occasional need. What gave you the authority and moral credibility, over the perspective of people voting with their wallets, to make that assertion? I would think the people who are actually spending their money would be better at knowing what they need, than internet commentators who are not. It would be like if I made the unfounded assertion that almost all programmers would be better off on Mac. And most that think a Mac is unsuitable are in denial.

rglullis 3y ago
> What gave you the authority and moral credibility I lived in an US suburb (Natick, West Mass). I lived in the city center of two American cities (Boston, NYC) for almost 5 years. I'm living in a large European city (Berlin) for 10+ years. Aside from the suburbs, I never had the "need" to have my own car to do anything. Public transportation and biking were the main modes of transportation, but I never restrained myself for getting a taxi or a ZipCar for the occasional longer trip. It's not about being "anti-car". The thing is that I have actual data and I can tell you from actual experience: the majority of people living in large urban centers will be better off if they don't have a car, let alone a truck. > over the perspective of people voting with their wallets. People "voting" with their wallets is not a reliable measure when the ballot does not have all the actual viable candidates. People started buying SUVs and trucks in North America not because they are the obvious superior alternative, but because car makers started removing the other alternatives from the market for not being as profitable. > I would think the people who are actually spending their money would be better at knowing what they need, than internet commentators who are not. In the US, trucks were almost 80% of all auto sales in 2023 [0]. Are you really willing to defend the position that the majority of people bought them because of "need"? [0]: https://finmasters.com/car-sales-statistics/ https://finmasters.com/car-sales-statistics/

randomdata 3y ago

> people would be better off if they bought a smaller/cheaper/more fuel efficient car and using those savings to rent a truck for the occasional need. I don't know, it is hard to square the depreciation on cars. I bought both a car and a truck around a decade ago. The car is now worthless. The truck is still worth about what I paid for it. The deprecation cost alone on that car has exceeded the cost of operating the truck over its lifetime thus far. Trucks are the most popular type of vehicle around these parts because they are, frankly, cheaper to operate in most cases. Certainly you can buy junkers that have already had their depreciation fully realized, but that is not a free lunch, it's just a different trade. Depreciation isn't some magical force. You're trading something for the lower initial cost, such as your time. If you have the money, money is no doubt what you will be most willing to part with. The other things you could trade are quite likely more valuable.

rglullis 3y ago
The value you are "keeping" on the truck could also be seen as value that you are not investing somewhere else.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- randomdata 3y ago
  Of course. Who has a vehicle without considering the opportunity cost? There is no reliably chosen investment I know of that provides ROI anywhere close to what my vehicles facilitate, though. It is possible you could win the lottery investing elsewhere, but that is pretty high risk. The vehicles provide decent, steady returns. But it is clear that trucks are cheaper than cars.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]