3 ms·

The amount of household wealth we throw away on cars, just to be able to participate in the economy, is BONKERS. In the past ten years my wife and I have spent

The amount of household wealth we throw away on cars, just to be able to participate in the economy, is BONKERS. In the past ten years my wife and I have spent a combined $30k on two vehicles for our 4-person family, and that was through months of bargain-hunting. I've count myself lucky to have gotten away with spending so little, yet even that amount represents to me a gigantic hole in our savings, wasted on depreciating assets.

master_crab 2y ago
That’s cheap. Good job on that! That doesn’t sound like that includes gas and maintenance costs. I’m sure that easily doubles the overall cost you listed. Not an efficient use of any of our money.
- velcrovan 2y ago
  You're right, it doesn't include gas, maintenance, or insurance.
ssivark 2y ago
Isn't that still roughly an order of magnitude less than what one spends for housing, in an area with access to economic opportunities?
- thomascountz 2y ago
  A house is an asset that can grow in value over time and build wealth, while a car loses value as you use it. Housing costs are higher but can provide long-term stability and access to better jobs and schools. A car helps you get to opportunities but doesn’t create wealth.
- velcrovan 2y ago
  People have always needed housing and will always need housing. They haven't always needed to individually purchase and maintain a 2,000lb machine every 5–10 years in order to participate in society at a basic level. In Amsterdam or Montreal I still need somewhere to live, but I can treat car ownership as a luxury rather than a basic necessity.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >People have always needed housing and will always need housing. Right, but not all housing is priced the same. Having a car allows you to live further away from the city center where real estate prices are astronomical. You might argue "we should invest in public transit instead!" or similar, but at least in the US, that's unlikely to materialize, and might not even be economical (eg. for suburbs).
    - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
      Apart from lower costs, suburb housing usually has more space, features like yards for pets or kids, less crime, parks and things that aren’t as crowded or littered (with needles in the city parks near me), better schools, shorter travel times between common family activities, etc. Suburbs aren’t popular for some irrational reason like HN often paints - they simply have better quality of life for many people, especially those who are 30+ or have families.
      - velcrovan 2y ago
        The attractiveness of the American suburban compromise is just an accident of American policy choices, and that suburban compromise has major downsides that we’ve been frog-boiled into accepting (see TFA). Different policies would make urban living much more attractive than suburbs, as is the case in much of the rest of the developed world. So when you say “better”… yeah, fine, if we’re going to refuse to govern constructively and responsibly, yes, suburbs are probably a better choice in that landscape.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]

master_crab 2y ago

That’s cheap. Good job on that! That doesn’t sound like that includes gas and maintenance costs. I’m sure that easily doubles the overall cost you listed. Not an efficient use of any of our money.

velcrovan 2y ago
You're right, it doesn't include gas, maintenance, or insurance.

ssivark 2y ago

Isn't that still roughly an order of magnitude less than what one spends for housing, in an area with access to economic opportunities?

thomascountz 2y ago
A house is an asset that can grow in value over time and build wealth, while a car loses value as you use it. Housing costs are higher but can provide long-term stability and access to better jobs and schools. A car helps you get to opportunities but doesn’t create wealth.
velcrovan 2y ago
People have always needed housing and will always need housing. They haven't always needed to individually purchase and maintain a 2,000lb machine every 5–10 years in order to participate in society at a basic level. In Amsterdam or Montreal I still need somewhere to live, but I can treat car ownership as a luxury rather than a basic necessity.
- gruez 2y ago
  >People have always needed housing and will always need housing. Right, but not all housing is priced the same. Having a car allows you to live further away from the city center where real estate prices are astronomical. You might argue "we should invest in public transit instead!" or similar, but at least in the US, that's unlikely to materialize, and might not even be economical (eg. for suburbs).
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    Apart from lower costs, suburb housing usually has more space, features like yards for pets or kids, less crime, parks and things that aren’t as crowded or littered (with needles in the city parks near me), better schools, shorter travel times between common family activities, etc. Suburbs aren’t popular for some irrational reason like HN often paints - they simply have better quality of life for many people, especially those who are 30+ or have families.
    - velcrovan 2y ago
      The attractiveness of the American suburban compromise is just an accident of American policy choices, and that suburban compromise has major downsides that we’ve been frog-boiled into accepting (see TFA). Different policies would make urban living much more attractive than suburbs, as is the case in much of the rest of the developed world. So when you say “better”… yeah, fine, if we’re going to refuse to govern constructively and responsibly, yes, suburbs are probably a better choice in that landscape.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]