CbadRider

This explains the point system. Infractions are given via private message and will show up on your profile page after you receive one.

Joe Perez

There is a large geographic and demographic component to this question.

In the southern US, where rust is not a factor and it is common to find cars of 1970s and 80s vintage still on the road as daily-drivers, $1,900 will buy a very dependable car which will require little in the way of routine major repair.

Likewise, for those who elect to learn how to carry out routine maintenance and repairs on their own, the expected repair bills on even a very old car in poor condition will be small, especially if it is one for which salvaged parts are readily available.

Speaking from personal experience, I moved to southern California in early 2010, and paid $800 for a 1990 Mazda Miata. It was in extremely poor cosmetic condition, but had only 210,000 miles on it and proved to be almost completely problem-free from a mechanical standpoint. Aside from routine wear items such as tires, brake pads and belts, I spent roughly $0 on repairs during the three and a half years that I owned that car. Obviously I performed all routine maintenance and repairs myself, so my only expenditures were for parts. Including the fact that I replaced the top and painted it, I probably spent around $1,500 total in service for that car. Amortized over 42 months, that was around $36 per month. Had I chosen not to paint the car, my amortized cost would have been around $26 / month.


While I'll freely admit that I have no experience in financing the purchase of a used car, the idea of getting one for $26 a month seems somewhat questionable to me.





For certain geographic regions, the answer is very simple:

People with very low incomes use public transportation, or do not have jobs at all. They also tend to live in dense, urban areas which do not require that they routinely travel long distances.

People with very high incomes tend to be able to afford upscale housing which is near the place where they need to commute to each day. At the same time, high income tends to positively correlate with self-discipline and high motivation, which are attributes that are also positively correlated with athleticism.

People with moderate incomes tend to seek out housing in suburban areas, where they sacrifice long commutes for inexpensive land.

Null66

Yes, but are any of them over $1m /year net?

RPK79

Perhaps.

katsrevenge

These are two of the wealthiest people in the world.
Carlos Sim




And Bill Gates

RPK79

Bill Gates: the super geek athlete

cooker

The person buying a new car may be making a poor economic decision, but they certainly aren’t doing it for altruistic or even community motivated reasons – they’re doing it because they believe it is the best choice for them. And I think it is highly dubious to imply that by that maintaining and increasing the fleet of private cars on the road, they are acting in the “collective long-term interests of the community as a whole”. I’d say the person who takes the bus is the one doing that.

cooker

At my worksite we have two main campuses about 5 km apart and the corp will pay for cabs back and forth or reimburse you for using your own vehicle at about 40c/km. I read the policy very carefully and it said "vehicle" not "motor vehicle" so I have claimed reimbursement for going back and forth on my bike a few times just to make a point.

RPK79

That may very well be, but the people paying you the reimbursement don't necessarily follow the tax code nor is the US tax code (which I was talking about) necessarily have the same stance as the Canadian tax code.

Joe Perez

I agree with this completely.

That analogy was made to respond specifically to Dahon.Steve's post, and presupposing, for the sake of acting as the Devil's Advocate, his assertion that "if 84% of the people who purchased new cars purchased used vehicles or worse, took the bus, we would go into a DEEP recession," without actually passing judgement on its validity. Context matters.




I never said that they were.

And if you read the link I posted with regard to the Tragedy of the Commons, you might understand that the opposite is true. In that classic economic paradox, individuals are understood to consciously act in a manner which is in their own best interest, without regard for the fact that they are doing harm to the well-being of the community as a whole. Thus, a reversal of that paradox would require people to act in a manner which is contrary to their own best interest, without regard for the fact that they are helping the community as a whole. (Again, presupposing that Dahon.Steve's argument is true, which doesn't matter for the purpose of this specific analysis.)

Roody

I think you're missing the point when you say, "a reversal of that paradox would require people to act in a manner which is contrary to their own best interest...."

Doing something that furthers the common interest benefits each individual in the long run.

I'm sure you're familiar with the common example of the tragedy of the commons: If I allow my cattle to over-graze in a public pasture, I will benefit in the short run. But if my cattle ruin the pasture so that nobody can use it in future years, I suffer along with everybody else. Therefore, using a long-term analysis, if I limit my cattle, I am benefiting myself, not acting "in a manner which is contrary to [my] own best interest...."

Given that resources and waste storage capacity are finite and approaching their limits, a good understanding of the tragedy of the commons is indispensable. People need to understand that caring for the planet (for instance, being carfree) is not a sacrifice. It's a key to long-term prosperity.

cooker

yeah, I was just giving an example of how I'm personally "stickin' it to the man"