5 ms·

Weird that this is presented as a problem for some reason. They're objects that lose value when you use them. That's normal.

high_na_euv 1y ago
Dafuck? No. It says that it deprecates faster than other type of cars which should be worse in this particular criteria
electric_muse 1y ago
Hey, did you read the article? The newsworthy point is that the EVs depreciate faster than gas counterparts. But hey, that just means better used EV prices for the rest of us. You can get some high end gently used ones for a great price. — “ For Tesla owners in the U.S., their 2023 Model Ys are worth 42% less than what they paid two years ago, while a Ford F-150 truck bought the same year depreciated just 20%. Older EV models depreciate even faster than newer ones. ”
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 1y ago
  Better used EV prices for buyers just means that EV sellers get ripped off Why buy a car that depreciates hella fast?
- linsomniac 1y ago
  I'm not sure I'd call an F-150 a "counterpart" to a Tesla Model Y, especially when the F-150 Lightning exists. I assume that it is because F-150 vs F-150 Lightning disproves the premise of this article.
dabbledash 1y ago
Because people prefer their objects to lose value more slowly? Not sure why this would be hard to understand.
- rjdj377dhabsn 1y ago
  If they're losing value primarily because better options are becoming available rather than their own functionality decreasing, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
  - xienze 1y ago
    It is because people are incentivized to just wait for the "better options" that everyone knows are coming soon. Or, let's say you bought one and had an accident that totals the car but oops, the steep depreciation curve means you have to go out of pocket to pay off a total loss. No one wants that.
    - rjdj377dhabsn 1y ago
      Always waiting for "better options" is often irrational. You should buy what's best for you today. If the value of your EV has dropped to $10k and you get paid out that much for an accident, then in theory you should be able to buy a similar condition EV on the used car market for $10k. What's the problem with that?
      - xienze 1y ago
        > Always waiting for "better options" is often irrational. You should buy what's best for you today. If you're trying to get people to switch en masse to EVs, it's not good for everyone to be in perpetual "ehh there's gonna be way better ones around the corner" mode. > If the value of your EV has dropped to $10k and you get paid out that much for an accident, then in theory you should be able to buy a similar condition EV on the used car market for $10k. What's the problem with that? The problem is when your loan balance is $20K and you're only getting a $10K payoff...
      - IAmBroom 1y ago
        Again, you're attempting to use logic to convince reality to change. People make irrational decisions. That's a fact. People "should" do things they don't. That's a fact. The question is not, "What would a logically-driven being do?", but "What are people doing?"
rpigab 1y ago
Wierd that we're presenting SpaceX rockets that explode shortly after takeoff as a problem. They're objects that disintegrate in the atmosphere at some point when you use them. That's normal, it even has a name: rapid unscheduled disassembly.
gregoriol 1y ago
If something looses value faster than something else it can be compared to, then it's considered as worse, meaning fewer people are going to buy it, meaning if you have one, you'll be able to afford less than others in a few years.
- rjdj377dhabsn 1y ago
  Something's ability to store value is only one factor, and probably not the most important, when you're not buying it as an investment. A bar of gold will hold value a lot better than a car, but that doesn't mean a car is a worse purchase.
  - Ekaros 1y ago
    Depreciation is huge factor if you buy something for utility. I think we can say that EV and ICE has nearly same utility, perks on either side. Faster refuelling vs. being able to do it at home. Now next we can compare operational costs, what is the cost of fuel/electricity and maintenance. With home charging yes EVs are ahead. But if we take into account Purchase price minus price you get when selling. Well EVs are often more expensive to start with. And then they depreciate more so you get less as an percentage from original purchase price. Now it can very well be that you come lot of ahead in scenarios where you replace car with new one every 3 or 5 years with ICEs. So total cost of ownership does matter. And big chunk of that is depreciation. Unless you are one of the few who buy new and then drive it to junk yard.
    - rjdj377dhabsn 1y ago
      Unless a 5 year old EV has lost a lot more functionality than a 5 year old ICE, that situation doesn't seem likely. If in 5 years, your EV (that had similar utility as an ICE when you bought it) has lost so much value relative to a new EV, then the new EV must offer much more utility over both the old EV and the old ICE, in which case your ICE should have lost a similar amount of value.
      - 1y ago
p1dda 1y ago
Trying hard to rationalise your EV purchase I see

high_na_euv 1y ago

Dafuck? No. It says that it deprecates faster than other type of cars which should be worse in this particular criteria

electric_muse 1y ago

Hey, did you read the article? The newsworthy point is that the EVs depreciate faster than gas counterparts. But hey, that just means better used EV prices for the rest of us. You can get some high end gently used ones for a great price. — “ For Tesla owners in the U.S., their 2023 Model Ys are worth 42% less than what they paid two years ago, while a Ford F-150 truck bought the same year depreciated just 20%. Older EV models depreciate even faster than newer ones. ”

2OEH8eoCRo0 1y ago
Better used EV prices for buyers just means that EV sellers get ripped off Why buy a car that depreciates hella fast?
linsomniac 1y ago
I'm not sure I'd call an F-150 a "counterpart" to a Tesla Model Y, especially when the F-150 Lightning exists. I assume that it is because F-150 vs F-150 Lightning disproves the premise of this article.

dabbledash 1y ago

Because people prefer their objects to lose value more slowly? Not sure why this would be hard to understand.

rjdj377dhabsn 1y ago
If they're losing value primarily because better options are becoming available rather than their own functionality decreasing, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
- xienze 1y ago
  It is because people are incentivized to just wait for the "better options" that everyone knows are coming soon. Or, let's say you bought one and had an accident that totals the car but oops, the steep depreciation curve means you have to go out of pocket to pay off a total loss. No one wants that.
  - rjdj377dhabsn 1y ago
    Always waiting for "better options" is often irrational. You should buy what's best for you today. If the value of your EV has dropped to $10k and you get paid out that much for an accident, then in theory you should be able to buy a similar condition EV on the used car market for $10k. What's the problem with that?
    - xienze 1y ago
      > Always waiting for "better options" is often irrational. You should buy what's best for you today. If you're trying to get people to switch en masse to EVs, it's not good for everyone to be in perpetual "ehh there's gonna be way better ones around the corner" mode. > If the value of your EV has dropped to $10k and you get paid out that much for an accident, then in theory you should be able to buy a similar condition EV on the used car market for $10k. What's the problem with that? The problem is when your loan balance is $20K and you're only getting a $10K payoff...
    - IAmBroom 1y ago
      Again, you're attempting to use logic to convince reality to change. People make irrational decisions. That's a fact. People "should" do things they don't. That's a fact. The question is not, "What would a logically-driven being do?", but "What are people doing?"

rpigab 1y ago

Wierd that we're presenting SpaceX rockets that explode shortly after takeoff as a problem. They're objects that disintegrate in the atmosphere at some point when you use them. That's normal, it even has a name: rapid unscheduled disassembly.

gregoriol 1y ago

If something looses value faster than something else it can be compared to, then it's considered as worse, meaning fewer people are going to buy it, meaning if you have one, you'll be able to afford less than others in a few years.

rjdj377dhabsn 1y ago
Something's ability to store value is only one factor, and probably not the most important, when you're not buying it as an investment. A bar of gold will hold value a lot better than a car, but that doesn't mean a car is a worse purchase.
- Ekaros 1y ago
  Depreciation is huge factor if you buy something for utility. I think we can say that EV and ICE has nearly same utility, perks on either side. Faster refuelling vs. being able to do it at home. Now next we can compare operational costs, what is the cost of fuel/electricity and maintenance. With home charging yes EVs are ahead. But if we take into account Purchase price minus price you get when selling. Well EVs are often more expensive to start with. And then they depreciate more so you get less as an percentage from original purchase price. Now it can very well be that you come lot of ahead in scenarios where you replace car with new one every 3 or 5 years with ICEs. So total cost of ownership does matter. And big chunk of that is depreciation. Unless you are one of the few who buy new and then drive it to junk yard.
  - rjdj377dhabsn 1y ago
    Unless a 5 year old EV has lost a lot more functionality than a 5 year old ICE, that situation doesn't seem likely. If in 5 years, your EV (that had similar utility as an ICE when you bought it) has lost so much value relative to a new EV, then the new EV must offer much more utility over both the old EV and the old ICE, in which case your ICE should have lost a similar amount of value.
    - 1y ago

p1dda 1y ago

Trying hard to rationalise your EV purchase I see