News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters by ZeroFries on Sunday June 05, 2016 @11:03AM (#11841312)
How do you account for all the wasted space when the houses aren't in use? The extra costs?
Re:Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters by omonra on Sunday June 05, 2016 @11:35AM (#11841475)
Same way you account for the time your car is not being driven - you consider the total cost of ownership vs benefits and your ability to afford it.
Re:Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters by cplease on Sunday June 05, 2016 @12:25PM (#11841675)
This is a bad analogy missing the point that ZeroFries was making. A car's lifespan is mostly determined by mileage. When a car is not being driven its condition and value is largely unchanged. It is not analogous to a vacant house. If you drive a car twice as much of the time it will have to be replaced nearly twice as soon.
Re:Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters by ghaff on Sunday June 05, 2016 @02:22PM (#11842286)
>A car's lifespan is mostly determined by mileage.

This is far less true in regions with snow. Assuming you drive the vehicle in the winter, a non-trivial contribution to "wear and tear" on the car is rust which occurs even if the car isn't driven a lot. (Cars are far better in this respect than they used to be but rotted out fluid lines etc. is still very much a thing.)

Re:Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters by cplease on Sunday June 05, 2016 @07:54PM (#11843795)
I'm in the snowbelt and well aware of this. Mileage (at a given city/highway mix) is still the biggest factor presuming the car is getting some minimum duty cycle. I said "mostly," not that the number of winters is nontrivial.

If you only drive 5,000 miles a year, sure, but that's not typical.

Re:Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters by dsfyu404ed on Monday June 06, 2016 @08:31AM (#11846255)
Beyond using 10k/yr as a rule of thumb for average duty cycle mileage is a horrible indicator of vehicle wear. Engines are worn by cold start cycles, transmissions are worn by shifting, brakes get worn by stopping and suspension components get worn by potholes, etc.

Newish used cars with ~200k on them are usually good buys because often times it's someone who used it for work (salesperson, etc.) and just ground out the highway miles (which are nearly free from a wear and tear perspective)

Re:Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters by cplease on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @11:40PM (#11867393)
Except I never made the claim that nominal mileage objectively indicates vehicle wear. All I'm claiming, is that mileage is the largest factor. It doesn't matter if your driving wears out a car in 300,000 miles and my driving burns out a car at 80,000 miles. Your miles are your miles and my miles are my miles.

If we somehow manage to magically share a car, it's not going to last a lot longer than if we're wearing out our own cars at our respective rates (mine faster than yours).

But you reinforce the point that the car sitting in the parking lot or garage is not simply an over-provisioned resource by reason of being idle. If your usage patterns are so different than mine it's unrealistic to expect a configuration where we would be able to share a car.

Car-sharing has many benefits, but a car is still worth more than two half-cars.

Re:Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters by ams6110 on Sunday June 05, 2016 @11:33AM (#11841472)
It's accounted for in the value of the land and the farmhouse, which the owner has paid for.
Re:Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters by jdhzzz on Sunday June 05, 2016 @11:18AM (#11841402)
Airbnb