3 ms·

I did not get that from the article at all. Just that there are certain costs to owning a used car that you don't usually incur when owning a new one. I though

by steverb 12y ago

I did not get that from the article at all. Just that there are certain costs to owning a used car that you don't usually incur when owning a new one. I thought the author was acknowledging that he was better equipped to deal with those costs than someone else might be in a different life situation. And for those other people, it might actually make more sense for them to own a newer car even if it might appear at first blush that they were being less responsible with their money than we might think they should be. In other words, there's no such thing as a free lunch.

mikeash 12y ago
The article needs a new title. "You gotta be rich to own a car with almost a million miles on it" would be much better. Of course, this is a pretty obvious thing to say, so it probably wouldn't get as many clicks. But at least it would be honest. It makes no sense to talk about costs of "owning a used car." The costs involved in owning a two-year-old midrange Toyota with 20,000 miles on it are completely different from the costs involved in owning an ancient luxury car that's driven the equivalent of to the Moon and back twice. Buying a Lexus with 900,000 miles on it is so unusual that there's no way to generalize the story beyond it.
- sejje 12y ago
  I'm not sure what it read when you wrote this comment, but it currently reads "to own a cheap car." Used is implied, certainly, but I don't think "barely used" is part of it. Basically, a two-year-old Toyota with 20k miles doesn't qualify.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    Which "it"? The comment I'm replying to says, "Just that there are certain costs to owning a used car that you don't usually incur when owning a new one." In any case, there's a wide universe of cheap cars (and what exactly is the threshold for "cheap" anyway?) just as there is a wide universe of used cars.
maxlybbert 12y ago
I thought the author was trying to ingratiate himself with people who use "privilege" as if it were an actually smart thing to say, even though he mocks those same people ("Normally I consider the use of the word 'privilege' in a conversation to be the brilliant peacock plumage that identifies a third-rate pseudo-intellectual from ten paces away").

by steverb 12y ago

mikeash 12y ago

The article needs a new title. "You gotta be rich to own a car with almost a million miles on it" would be much better. Of course, this is a pretty obvious thing to say, so it probably wouldn't get as many clicks. But at least it would be honest. It makes no sense to talk about costs of "owning a used car." The costs involved in owning a two-year-old midrange Toyota with 20,000 miles on it are completely different from the costs involved in owning an ancient luxury car that's driven the equivalent of to the Moon and back twice. Buying a Lexus with 900,000 miles on it is so unusual that there's no way to generalize the story beyond it.

sejje 12y ago
I'm not sure what it read when you wrote this comment, but it currently reads "to own a cheap car." Used is implied, certainly, but I don't think "barely used" is part of it. Basically, a two-year-old Toyota with 20k miles doesn't qualify.
- mikeash 12y ago
  Which "it"? The comment I'm replying to says, "Just that there are certain costs to owning a used car that you don't usually incur when owning a new one." In any case, there's a wide universe of cheap cars (and what exactly is the threshold for "cheap" anyway?) just as there is a wide universe of used cars.

maxlybbert 12y ago

I thought the author was trying to ingratiate himself with people who use "privilege" as if it were an actually smart thing to say, even though he mocks those same people ("Normally I consider the use of the word 'privilege' in a conversation to be the brilliant peacock plumage that identifies a third-rate pseudo-intellectual from ten paces away").