2 ms·

Disposable? I don't see anything that suggests that you bury it in a landfill after 10 years. All I see is a sweet-spot calculation for when to liquidate the

by pohl 17y ago

Disposable? I don't see anything that suggests that you bury it in a landfill after 10 years. All I see is a sweet-spot calculation for when to liquidate the asset. I think the assumption is that someone would buy it and use it. I'm in the process of selling a condo and buying a house. Does that make my condo "disposable"?

thaumaturgy 17y ago
Sure, someone would probably buy it and use it, but ultimately at a disadvantage; they would end up paying more in maintenance costs than the vehicle was worth. They would be doing that out of necessity; if they had the credit or initial funds, this pretty clearly indicates that they'd be better off, financially, buying a 5-year-old car instead. If the car's maintenance costs exceed its value after 15 years, then it should be considered "disposed" at that point, even if it hasn't been thrown away. Just because you can sharpen the blades on a disposable razor doesn't make the razor less disposable. After looking more closely at the graphs though, I realized that I misinterpreted the headline here. The headline suggests that the car becomes disposable at 15 years of age, and the graph actually has it closer to 20 I think. That's not quite so bad.
- pohl 17y ago
  Still, do not despair. The problem here is not that the car is considered disposable by that criteria. The problem is the criteria itself, in particular: 1) the definition of the asset's value, 2) the definition of maintenance costs, and 3) the notion that the asset should be considered "disposed" when those ill-defined maintenance costs exceed that ill-defined value. The problem with #1 is that an asset's value to its owner is only partially represented by the amount of money for which it can be liquidated. The problem with #2, is that they include operational costs (fuel, etc.) that one would bear regardless of which car they owned. The problem with #3 is your concept of 'disposable', which may work for you but is not universal. Someone else might only consider it 'disposable' when problems begin to appear in a notoriously expensive-to-repair subsystem, like the transmission. And, even then, the car tends to not actually be disposed because its parts can be used to keep other similar models alive. I guess I feel like your lament hinges upon one very narrow possible meaning of the word 'disposable'. Perhaps "fully depreciated" is more close to the idea you wanted to capture?

by pohl 17y ago

thaumaturgy 17y ago

Sure, someone would probably buy it and use it, but ultimately at a disadvantage; they would end up paying more in maintenance costs than the vehicle was worth. They would be doing that out of necessity; if they had the credit or initial funds, this pretty clearly indicates that they'd be better off, financially, buying a 5-year-old car instead. If the car's maintenance costs exceed its value after 15 years, then it should be considered "disposed" at that point, even if it hasn't been thrown away. Just because you can sharpen the blades on a disposable razor doesn't make the razor less disposable. After looking more closely at the graphs though, I realized that I misinterpreted the headline here. The headline suggests that the car becomes disposable at 15 years of age, and the graph actually has it closer to 20 I think. That's not quite so bad.

pohl 17y ago
Still, do not despair. The problem here is not that the car is considered disposable by that criteria. The problem is the criteria itself, in particular: 1) the definition of the asset's value, 2) the definition of maintenance costs, and 3) the notion that the asset should be considered "disposed" when those ill-defined maintenance costs exceed that ill-defined value. The problem with #1 is that an asset's value to its owner is only partially represented by the amount of money for which it can be liquidated. The problem with #2, is that they include operational costs (fuel, etc.) that one would bear regardless of which car they owned. The problem with #3 is your concept of 'disposable', which may work for you but is not universal. Someone else might only consider it 'disposable' when problems begin to appear in a notoriously expensive-to-repair subsystem, like the transmission. And, even then, the car tends to not actually be disposed because its parts can be used to keep other similar models alive. I guess I feel like your lament hinges upon one very narrow possible meaning of the word 'disposable'. Perhaps "fully depreciated" is more close to the idea you wanted to capture?