For rough numbers: The average cost of car ownership in the US is around $9000/yr and 15000 miles (24000 km). So, if an extra $25/day would ruin you, or paying $25/day to go 40 miles (65km) seems ridiculous to you, then you should not buy a car.

This is of course an average. Where you live and what sort of car you choose matters a lot. Putting aside luxury, and new cars and focusing on just transportation… there is a tradeoff between average daily cost of ownership and reliability. If you can say "sorry, won't be to work on time, my car died" without jeopardizing your income then you can live the exciting life of the $500 car. My daughter's friends who do this get by on something like $4-5/day to pay for the car (excluding "mandatory" insurance, which is around $3/day, they pay that sometimes, or not depending on their work situation). Fix the small things, maybe with help from friends, sell it to the scrap yard and get another when the big repair comes.

> then you should not buy a car

How then they go to work? I understand that in the USA public transportation is quite lacking except for a few big cities.

Picture a US old suburban area as a network of multi lane roads on something like 5 to 10 mile spacings. These roads will be lined with businesses. There will be some area of small shops on the road, some of strip centers. Maybe a big mall. Some office buildings. Behind these buildings it becomes residential. There will be bus service along these major arteries.

So, choose to live on an artery near a bus stop, and that entire artery becomes available to you for employment without owning a car.

It’s true, you can’t get to arbitrary residential addresses without long walks, but commerce is on the arteries. Try to avoid needing transfers to a different artery. That is a huge time sink.

Newer suburbs, 20+ miles from city center, are different. They only have commerce at the intersection of arteries or specialized areas and this does not work for bus riding.

This is all for fungible employees in fungible jobs. If you are a skilled professional in a suburban employment your pay will be high enough to have a car and live in the quieter areas off the arteries.

> I understand that in the USA public transportation is quite lacking except for a few big cities.

I won't pretend it's the greatest but I've lived in quite a few 2nd and 3rd tier US cities like Phoenix, Atlanta, Jacksonville Fl, Nashville, Knoxville TN and quite a few others and the buses are certainly capable of getting you to work and back. Everywhere I've lived the buses run 7 days a week from early in the AM to late at night and some run 24 hours a day in Atlanta. Pretty much any bus route will see a bus come along every 20 or 30 minutes with some stretching out to 45 minutes. Some routes though will see a bus every 5 or 10 minutes depending on the day and time.

Even in Jacksonville FL which has more land area I think any other US city, there is no urban part of the city that is more than a half mile from a bus stop. You can even take a bus from the north extreme end of the city to the extreme south, where a shuttle connects that will then take you to St. Augustine (a suburb of Jacksonville), a grand total of probably 60 miles, for less than $4 total. That doesn't seem too bad. Is it perfect? No. But I think the public transportation system problems may be a little overblown at least in the cities I've lived in.

more rough numbers: I live in an Australian city with decent public transport -- well, decent in patches. It costs about USD $3.3/day for public transport fees if you take the train every day all year. I don't need a car. Now I mostly commute to work on bike (15km return). It costs maybe USD $140/year for bike parts and repairs on a bad year, call it USD $0.4/day. I still use public transport a day or two per week, so that's maybe plus USD $1.2/day on average.

On the other hand I pay a bit more in rent to live somewhere with easy bike and public transport options.

I'm not surprised and the problem starts with buying a car.

I've always purchased fairly low cost used cars but I recently went to a dealership for the first with someone who was getting a new car (for themselves).

It boggles my mind how reluctant the salesman was to give the "real" price of the car. He also made it sound like it was a nearly impossible task just to get the actual amount the payments would be. He explained how it would take days, require making a charge and would have to get permission from his manager to even start the process. It was a total joke.

They also did everything in their power never to mention the real price of the car with interest applied on the payments, but it's such a non-ignorable amount. It could easily end up being 20-25% on top of what the listed price is from interest.

It really striked me as a situation where if you weren't detail oriented and let the salesman convince you into the purchase without running the numbers yourself you could easily get yourself in a lot of financial trouble.

Where does personal responsibility come in?

It's ludicrously easy to determine what payments will be, how much interest you'll pay, or what a narrow range of market price is for the vehicles you're considering.

It's hard to imagine dropping tens of thousands of dollars without doing the slightest bit of common sense research as anything other than willful ignorance.

> It's hard to imagine dropping tens of thousands of dollars without doing the slightest bit of common sense research as anything other than willful ignorance.

Totally.

But most people don't do that. Instead, they walk into the door and listen to the "expert" selling the car who is doing everything in their power to rip you off or give you a false sense of what you're really paying for that $25,000+ listed item.

It's insane to me that it's even legal. It's even worse than phone companies advertising something is $X per month but then there's 100 line items added in at the last second. Hotels do the same thing. It's no surprise so many people are in debt. So many companies (including medical facilities) do everything in their power to trick you or lie to you in order to make a sale.

Too many people are buying cars using financial products they don't understand: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14476381

When I'm trying to contain my costs, I ask how much something costs if I pay 100% in cash right now. If they can't give me a number, I generally won't make the purchase. When they that I'm ready to walk away, they usually find a way to give me a number.

There’s basically 2 types of dealerships. One that sells at rock bottom prices, advertises low prices online no one fully qualifies for, and rarely negotiates much. They focus on what the maximum amount of month you can spend and nothing else. They are the ones selling big trucks and big engines for sky high rates, but not always. Sounds like this is the place you went.

The second type of dealer doesn’t have tons of deals advertised and is usually priced on par with the places around them. They are much more focused on providing a nice sales experience and service. They usually have big lots and repeat customers. Baby boomers love them. You can haggle but they won’t hit rock bottom prices unless you pit two dealers against each other. All numbers are given to you and it doesn’t have the monthly cost tables.

This was a pretty big Ford dealership for reference. The sales guy was laser focused on the max amount being paid per month. Every question was around that and most non-monthly payment questions were diverted unless it was directly related to the listed price.

You can find list prices and option prices on the manufacturer website. Then google for what discounts people are getting off msrp, as well as interest rates. Then tell the salesperson you know what if costs, and you’ll buy it if they give you that price. If they don’t, walk and use a lower hassle service like Cartelligent.

I think the point is that if avoiding, or outsmarting the main sales channel is required, then it probably explains why all the old, sick, busy, distracted people are struggling financially, as this is only one industry out to con them.

Yes. These types of things can require mistakes to be made, and then self education once identified to prevent the same mistake in the future. Which is a lot to ask of someone running a family and working two jobs...

My dad and I tried to run a blog investigating things like this and giving advice. We've both been able to keep our car costs remarkably low. He's currently driving the most expensive car he's ever owned which cost him 10k (high mileage truck) and I'm still driving a 1993 Nissan SUV I bought a few years back for $900. Even when factoring in cost of repairs for both cars and bad gas mileage, we've saved thousands and thousands versus driving new[er] cars.

I don't think we were being condescending, but all of the posts were met with outrage that we dare suggest such things. People would say things like "I need a reliable car to get to work, and if it's not new, it's not reliable."

If you actually want to save money, don’t drive an SUV.

The cheapest new car in the US by the same company is 13,255$ and does 31 city / 39 highway. That cheap SUV gets at best 15 city / 19 highway, so assuming nothing is wrong it’s using twice the fuel.

Assuming 15k annual miles and zero mechanical issues you save money with the new car in ~10 years. Though a more through analysis is likely going to make that time shorter as keeping an old car on the road gets more expensive.

If your keep a car for 10 years it doesn't matter what you pay for it. People who buy new every 3 years are the ones lighting money on fire.

As someone who bought a 7 year old car used and has had it for 10, I disagree.

It does matter.

Buying such an old car takes some knowledge and skill. You can certainly find one that will be reliable. But can the average person actually count on being able to do that?

Beyond that, this may be a good financial decision on a personal level but it doesn’t scale to society as a whole. Used cars are cheap because few people want them. If everybody tried your scheme, the prices would go way up.

The average person can find a pick-your-brand Japanese car or crossover that’s 5-8 years old, if possible pay cash and get liability insurance only and motor for half the typical costs and basically the same reliability.

We bought my wife’s 2005 CR-V in 2011 for $8500 cash. In 8 years, it’s needed less than $750 in parts and we farmed out only one job (a clutch job which involves a good half-day of labor with a lift or a strenuous weekend without one). Total maintenance expenses have been under $2000 over 8 years and if the clutch job hadn’t been needed would have been under $1000. (Was a bearing failure not clutch wear.)

We’re under $11K into this thing, excluding gas, so $110/mo or so and still totally reliable.

You’re right on the market; it’s great that not everyone wants them: makes them cheap for those who know how smoking a deal they tend to be.

> and we farmed out only one job

That speaks of expertise and therefore is poor measure of TCO for the average person. That said, buying a 3-6 year old used car is frequent advice.

Where people fall down is not buying a used car. It's buying a used car they could not afford as a new car. If your buying a used vehicle that was 30+k new, your not actually getting a cheap vehicle, just an old one.

By far the cheapest car I ever owned was a Mercedes E300D turbodiesel. Was a $55K car in 1998 and a $6500 car in 2009. Mercedes in general but diesels in particular are built to last and are quite inexpensive to maintain if you DIY or use an independent mechanic.

A $6500 Jaguar is probably not a good budget recommendation though... :)

88% off on a 12 year old car is a serious discount. But, if it’s actually lasting 10 years as your daily driver without needing serious repairs you may just want to be buying lotto tickets :)

PS: A friend owned a used car for 3 years then sold it for a net profit without doing any repairs. But, good luck retreating that without spending a lot of time looking for great deals.

I suspect the biggest win is getting over the mostly mental hurdle of “I deserve a new car because reasons...”, deciding to buy used, and then just not picking absolute maintenance hogs. Most cars are quite reliable now and can easily go 150-200K miles without major drama. 10 Audis owned for 10 years will likely cost more than 20 Toyotas owned for 10 years. Even “over paying” at a place like CarMax (who makes it “easy” to shop for a late model used car) is better than getting fleeced at the new car dealer.

People love buying new cars though... It’d be a lot more amusing if it weren’t so financially harmful. (I confess to buying a new electric LEAF but only because it came with $10K in government money in the trunk. Even with you guys buying 1/3rd of it for us and Nissan financing it at 0% interest, it’s noticeably more expensive than our other cars. Good car though. Has needed wiper blades and washer fluid in 55 months of ownership.)

> Buying such an old car takes some knowledge and skill.

That was part of the point of the blog, transferring that knowledge.

> it doesn’t scale to society as a whole.

I dislike this argument, something doesn't have to scale to society as a whole to be a good idea. Tons of people that are rich or unwise can keep buying new cars and thousands of my readers can start buying used cars without throwing the whole world market off.

It’s not an argument, just a plain statement of fact. Remember, the context here is an article about the reasons why a huge number of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. It’s quite relevant to mention that having everyone buy old cars can’t solve this problem.

A new car is usually a bad financial decision, especially if you're at your first job.

I admittedly paid too much for my first car. Bought new in 1998 at way too high of an interest rate. I did keep that car for 18 years though, so it worked out in the end.

How do you calculate the cost of the risk associated with not having the latest safety tech? Especially subtle things like generous crumple zones which make a car less durable but pay off in the worst case?

I think people forgot that a 10 year old car means 2009. Newer cars are still safer, sure, but that's easily recent enough for good crumple zones, strong pillars and plenty of air bags, all for under 10k.

In his post he says his car is from 1993, which is 26 years old, not 10.

Cars are being built for 100 years; there are improvements, but not that big to say a 26 year old car is not safe enough. My 6 year old motorcycle has the almost the same technology like my 1993 bike I had 15 years ago, the only difference is fuel injection and nothing else. It is not even more reliable, but the manufacturer is the same.

That's why motorcycles are becoming comparatively less safe; none of the many advances in automobile safety can apply to them. People on the front lines of highway accidents have noticed the changes in cars due to crumple zones and the like:

> I have been in the emergency services for a little over 20 years now. Back in the late 90's we were cutting people, out of cars almost daily, and they where almost all dead or very close to it. Fast forward 20 years, and at the same speed collisions, when we stop on scene, people are standing next to the cars swapping insurance info. It is truly amazing to see a car that has disintegrated, and the people are fine.

> It also smells different. Back in the day you could smell all the stuff that was in the car...batteries would rupture, fuel lines would leak, oil all over the road. Drinking and driving was also more common, so you could smell blood and booze. Those smells are all but gone -- only very high speed accidents smell like that now. --https://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/brg6uy/cop_car_didnt_s...

Car ownership can only be financially ruinous if you value your time at no cost.

I live in a city with excellent public transport, and still, purchase of a car really improved my quality of life. Instead of 45-60 minutes using public transport, I can get to my dad's house with 13 minutes of driving. A recent example where I picked up a PC monitor from Samsung's service center and returned it to the store I bought it from for a replacement took 1 hour total instead 3 hours lugging the 27" monitor through public transport or spending two days worth of income on taxi rides.

The monthly TCO of my car amounts to around 4 times the cost of the public transports' monthly pass, and that doesn't account the money spent on taxis or ride hailing apps. I consider it worthwhile for the immense benefits I'm getting.

We're talking about Americans who live paycheque to paycheque. Presumably their time actually is valued at close to no cost (by their employer). Nobody is arguing everyone should drive a cheap old car.

>I suspect over the course of a lifetime car ownership could easily be the most ruinous financial baggage that a lot of people incur.

Not everyone in America needs or wants a car (NYC, etc). But everyone needs a roof over their head, and so I would vouch that the most ruinous financial baggage is....rent.

In my area minimum rent starts around $700/mo, but I have friends in the Bay paying $2000+/mo. $2000 a month! You could buy 2 beaters every month with that! Your first car broke down because it cost $900? Don't worry, just buy another for $900 and still have $200 left over...

I recognize repairs are expensive for cars that are $30k or even $20k, but there is nothing mandating you to keep that car or to not trade it in for a sub-$5k beater. The only counterargument here would be safety, and if you have kids, I guess that justifies the price tag.

Kids or not, though, you still need to pay rent, and if you're lucky enough to own a house, you still need to pay a mortgage.

In the Bay Area more realistic numbers seem to be around $2000 for a beater and $2000/year for fixing things that go wrong with it (mostly labour costs, $120-150/hour at independent shops here.)

Had my commute been a little less (bringing me under 15K miles a year) the overall cost was remarkably similar to a lease on a modest car.

It also could be the thing that lets them find a job and avoid financial ruin.

Public transit sometimes works, but it almost always increases how long it takes to get somewhere. If I was struggling to make ends meet by working two jobs and had kids, public transit would likely add so much time to my commute, that I'd have to choose between a second job, and having any time with the kids.

Frankly, I think car ownership is one of the most freeing things we have in modern life. It opens up doors that would be closed if you relied on other forms of transportation. Being able to go where you want, when you want, is very valuable.

Doesn't America offer some of the most affordable car prices?

This might be a bad example, but I am pretty sure that luxury German cars like Mercedes/BMW are cheaper to purchase/register in America than Netherlands/Denmark due to taxes.

All the cars are cheaper in the US than in Germany; either somewhat when the EUR/USD rate is low, or enough that (re)importing from the US becomes attractive.

Example: base 2019 Prius MSRP Germany: 28,450 EUR ($31,920) - includes 19% VAT MSRP US: $23,770 - does not include local sales tax

That’s even more of a difference than I was expecting, as the exchange rate is currently on the low side ($1.12, compared to the long term $1.20-1.25 or eye-watering $1.50 it touched about 10 years ago)

Yes, but cars are more of a necessity here than in Europe. No matter how poor you are, a 20 minute drive can still take over 2 hours by bus in some areas, and that's nearly impossible to work with.

Depends where in the US, and where in “Europe” (it’s a pretty big place you know...)

Indeed, but the US has 51% more cars per person than the Netherlands and 66% more than Denmark[1].

[1] https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Transport/Ro...

I have no statistics to back this up, but as far as I can tell the US seems way bigger on both buying new cars instead of used and on buying cars on finance instead of outright.

You're not saving money buying a brand new BMW on finance in the US instead of Europe if you could have bought a perfectly good used car for 5000 USD in cash.

We still buy $50,000 cars

If I do not have car it will increase my commute time at least 3 times. I may manage to come late to work due to flexible IT job but most people do not even have that option.

Considering job situation in general in this country people have to commute wherever they get job. I feel this is just fantasy that all of us can live near public transit.

What makes you think this? There are lots of sites/people who do "total cost to own" and the numbers they come up with aren't ruinous amounts as far as I can tell.

I have owned cars for over 20 yrs so I have a pretty good sense of just what a hole in my pocket the whole thing is :)

There are all sorts of costs associated with car ownership beyond mere purchase cost and repairs...things like fines associated with cars that fall more heavily on poorer people...there is just A LOT of cost associated with cars.

Avoiding fines is pretty much trivial. It’s insignificant compared to the cost of maintaining and fueling the car unless you’re incredibly irresponsible.

"fines associated with cars that fall more heavily on poorer people"

Examples?

If its a case of Ferraris don't need to pay to park, where other cars get ticketed, fair enough. If its just a case of poor people being more likely to speed, in which case that doesn't seem so reasonable to call out.

I'm not even sure if fines in general should be counted as a cost of ownership. You can just pay to park, you don't have to speed, in general it seems like a cost of rule breaking to me.

I'm not from the US, so the request for examples was genuine.

I imagine the person you're asking was talking about fines being regressive in the sense that if a wealthy person receives a $100 fine for speeding or parking violations, it's basically nothing, but the same $100 represents a day or 2 of labor for the working poor and could be ruinous if they are already barely able to pay their bills.

We can start with the fact that fines are not means tested so a speeding ticket for someone driving x miles over the speed limit is the same for a Ferrari driver (likely a rich person) and someone who would having trouble covering a $400 expense (a poor person)...in fact it is known that this type of situation often has a cascading effect on poorer people...lose your license/registration because you can't pay the fine, lose your job because you can't get to work, become even poorer....

The real problem is that car ownership is more or less mandatory in America because of the lack of viable alternative in most cases.

Those fines I speak of? I have a lot experience with...in fact for most of my late teens and early 20s I spent thousands in fines for various infractions. Not everyone manages to climbed out of those holes.

Any fine is an example. $40 to someone on the breadline is a problem. While to someone wealthy it’s nothing. There are people who don’t worry about fines due to their wealth, and just avoid situations that would risk their licence.

In Germany, Switzerland, and several other European jurisdictions, Bußgeld/Ordnungsbusse (fines) are distinguished from Geldstrafe (penalty? amercement?).

Depending on the gravity of the offence, the law (or court) determines the amount to pay, and it is in units of money for the Bußgeld, but in units of Tagessätze (daily fine) for the Geldstrafe. Now, how much money a Tagessatz corresponds to is determined in a second step based on the income and wealth of the offender.

So, for example, a banker in Switzerland that went 114 km/h instead of the allowed 80 and overtook on the right several times was fined 450,000 CHF (around 450,000 USD - yes, half a million).

I find that quite sensible.

https://www.blick.ch/news/schweiz/zuerich/halsbrecherisches-...

> I find that quite sensible.

I guess it depends what you think the purpose of a fine is. personally, I think a fine ought to be a rough estimate for the excess risk you exposed other people to. I don't think a speeding banker exposes society to any more risk than a speeding janitor.

> personally, I think a fine ought to be a rough estimate for the excess risk you exposed other people to.

Ok, but that's not actually what a fine is for. It's meant to be a deterrent against future offenses, both by the party it's levied against and for others.[1]

1. https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/fines.html

> The purposes of imposing a criminal fine are to punish the offender, help compensate the state for the offense, and deter any future criminal acts.

looks like the source you cited supports both perspectives.

So then you agree that the goals of "punish the offender" and "deter any future criminal acts" would not be served by having the same fine amount for everyone, regardless of means?

yes, but I personally don't think that's a good goal for a fine. generally speaking, there are two kinds of offenses: those that hurt people, and those that don't necessarily harm, but expose to excess risk. if you actually hurt someone, you should pay the approximate cost plus a little extra. if you hurt someone seriously, some jail time might be in order. but I think excess risk is better handled through liability. there's something sort of absurd about being punished for a behavior that didn't actually hurt anyone.

tbh, I don't actually support speeding tickets in the first place, at least not on the highway. people speeding in a well-maintained vehicle (and obeying the other traffic laws) are not a huge threat. I'm much more worried about the people weaving between traffic, obstructing the fast lane, reading instagram, etc.

> there's something sort of absurd about being punished for a behavior that didn't actually hurt anyone.

So there should only be penalties for DUI if you get into an accident?

It's impossible to predict in advance which specific incidences of risky behavior will cause harm. That's why the behavior itself is penalized. If there is actual harm, the penalties ramp up.

> if you actually hurt someone, you should pay the approximate cost plus a little extra

How does someone "pay the approximate cost" for risky driving that kills or seriously injures someone? If you use the various "value of life" calculations floating around, there are at least some people for whom it's not a lot of money on a probability adjusted basis (e.g. $2m * 0.1% chance of them causing a fatal accident). But accident victims, their family and friends, and society as a whole would prefer that an accident never happened at all than have someone write a check after the fact. This means no one can be allowed to buy a "risky driving pass" by virtue of their wealth.

> people speeding in a well-maintained vehicle (and obeying the other traffic laws) are not a huge threat

The numbers appear to disagree with you. [1] Speeding is a factor in a quarter of all traffic fatalities.

> I'm much more worried about the people weaving between traffic, obstructing the fast lane, reading instagram, etc.

I agree but I've also noticed that weaving between lanes goes hand-in-hand with speeding. It's hard to keep going faster than other traffic without constantly switching lanes to find space.

1. https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/speeding

there are two major problems with the document you linked.

> NHTSA considers a crash to be speeding-related if any driver in the crash was charged with a speeding-related offense or if a police officer indicated that racing, driving too fast for conditions, or exceeding the posted speed limit was a contributing factor in the crash.

the entire definition of "speeding was a factor" boils down to either 1) an officer was there and gave you a speeding ticket, or 2) after showing up to the scene of an accident, it was the officer's opinion that speeding contributed to the crash in some way. the whole document rests on this tenuous connection. for the purposes of this document, speeding can "be a factor" even if the officer didn't think it was a contributing factor, but happened to write a speeding ticket!

the other major problem is that the document makes little effort to tease apart other risky behaviors that may correlate with speeding. it only breaks out age, gender, surface, and BAC for separate consideration. put another way, this document describes the entire population of people who speed (which is about half of drivers in the US [0]), but cannot answer the question: "how dangerous is it to exceed the speed limit in a well-maintained car if you do nothing else wrong?"

given your responses so far, I expect you will consider this paranoid/cynical, but I don't trust the state to set reasonable traffic laws. just as an example, in my city the government was caught deliberately reducing the length of yellow lights immediately after introducing red light cameras. the state sees traffic violations as a revenue stream. they see something easy to measure (eg, speeding), and make laws that most people will break. they're not interested in investigating whether the limits make sense, or whether they are even enforcing something meaningful. no one is willing to make speed limits their hill to die on, so they get away with it.

[0] https://one.nhtsa.gov/portal/site/NHTSA/menuitem.554fad9f184...

> "how dangerous is it to exceed the speed limit in a well-maintained car if you do nothing else wrong?"

What I'm saying is that speeding doesn't happen in isolation. The only times it's "safe" to speed is:

1. To keep up with other traffic. You're unlikely to get a ticket in this scenario, and by following the speed limit you would be making the situation more dangerous.

2. On an open country road, with little other traffic. You're also unlikely to get a ticket here, because of how few patrols would be around - but be aware of deer.

Otherwise speeding will necessary involve weaving in and out of lanes, sudden braking, and following other cars too closely.

> I expect you will consider this paranoid/cynical, but I don't trust the state to set reasonable traffic laws

I don't consider it paranoid or cynical. I'm aware of the yellow light issue and it's a terribly shortsighted thing for cities to have done. But none of this has to do with where we originally started talking: should fines be based on ability to pay?

> they see something easy to measure (eg, speeding),

If it's easy to measure, it's also easy to follow. Do we want more ambiguous laws that can be even more selectively enforced?

> and make laws that most people will break

That's something to lobby against then. Having a law that no one follows reduces respect for other laws.

I'm not from the US, but starting from some income threshold you can use dedicated lanes daily and pay in the end of the month. While for most of the populace occasional ticket for the same thing might be a big financial trouble.

More "fair" scheme would be fines proportional to your income or vehicle cost, but I have heard of such things only in some European countries.

You write: "There are all sorts of costs associated with car ownership beyond mere purchase cost and repairs". Service and maintenance is another one. I have colleagues who, overall, like the Uber and Lyft lifestyle, even when facing the occasional cancellations.

I'm curious if there are empirical studies done on the overall benefits and costs of owning vs leasing vs ridesharing?

One can find Total Cost of Ownership calculators online, eg edmunds.com. A Toyota Camry that costs $25k has a total cost of ownership over 5 years of $40k, or some $670 per month.

One could get a pilot's license for that amount and fly an hour per week.

That sounds like a lot to me. Our Nissan sunny from 1991 costs around 500 euro/year for us.

Including gas, oil changes, insurance, new tires, etc? How many kilometers per year?

I used to keep very close track of my finances and commented one day at work on how much of our money we spent on our cars. Everyone in the office thought that I was being preposterous and that they spent nothing near that on their cars. Nevermind the fact that I drove the oldest car and lived the closest to work.

Gas / insurance / registration are costs people just generally don't count into car ownership. Probably part of the reason people are so happy to buy SUVs that get terrible mileage.

1200km/year Yes, including all of these.

1200km year is not much (3km/day). The calculation above probably includes ten times as much usage.

Edit: apparently the edmunds.com calculator assumes 15000 miles per year which are 24000 km, 20 times your 1200km.

I don't... understand what you're talking about. Sure there are additional costs to owning a car, but you're not really explaining how they're so commonly ruinous to a person's financial well being.

So far all you've given me is a few worst case scenarios, but what about the average scenario? What's the normal car ownership process like in your mind, and how does that average situation teeter so close to the edge of ruin, as you say?

The IRS allows you to deduct $0.51/mile if you use your car for business. This takes into account all the costs of driving: gas, insurance, registration, depreciation, maintenance and repairs.[1] I don't know if it also takes into account the opportunity cost of having $15-50k sitting in your driveway instead of in an investment.

The average American commutes 32 miles/day round-trip[2] (we're not counting other driving). So they're incurring ~$16/day in direct and indirect costs related to car ownership and driving. Over 1 year of workdays, that's approximately $4k in car-related costs.

The median household income in the United States is approximately $60k.[3]

This implies that the median household spends almost 7% of income just on one car. Most households have 2 vehicles so I'll wager it's more like 10-12% of income. This is also more than the amount households save annually (6%).[4]

1. http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/10/06/the-true-cost-of-c...

2. https://itstillruns.com/far-americans-drive-work-average-744...

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...

4. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/personal-savings

So? Their entire income is probably tied to that car getting them to/from work, so it is an investment, with returns being their ability to hold their job.

Right. But no one needs a $15k car, let alone a $50k one, to get to/from work. If you're counting job income as RoI from a car, why not buy a $7k car? That's far better RoI.

And after one has held a steady job for a few years, no one should need to finance a $15k car either.

That's where most of the costs of car ownership come from (apart from long commutes) - depreciation, interest payments, and insurance.

No one needs to wear any clothes at all, or at most a paper bag would do.

And yet, here we are...

> No one needs to wear any clothes at all, or at most a paper bag would do.

Clothes aren't optional because of public indecency laws and also because most places don't have perfect weather year-round. A paper bag won't do because it'll rip in a couple of minutes, or not offer enough protection against the elements. Same deal with a plastic bag or anything else that's not real clothing. Being shirtless or barefoot restricts your entry to many establishments, but if you don't care about those places then yeah shirts and shoes are optional.

All the same, no one needs to wear expensive clothes. If they cover you up, keep you warm, and keep you employable, they're good enough. For a programmer that may mean free swag t-shirt and jeans, and for a rich banker, a $2k suit. But wearing suits every day would be a pointless indulgence for the programmer and wearing $20k suits every day would also be a waste of money for the banker. (I have no idea how much "high-powered finance" suits cost, numbers are estimates)

Unfortunately for your argument, we don't live in the reality that you're trying to pretend exists, where direct utility is the only valuable feature of an object.

Also the fact that you spent so much time talking about the utility of a paper bag more or less outs you as a pedant, so I think I'm done here.

Define ruinous. I'd expect car ownership to be someone's 2nd largest expense. I could see how it could tip someone over the edge.

A great deal of this depends on whether the car is bought outright or paid over time, as car loans are usually hideously bad deals. Better to get a cheap car that will be short-lived while you save for something more durable, in many cases.

Wait, why are car loans hideously bad deals?

1. You're paying interest on a depreciating asset that doesn't earn any return. Worse, the minute you drive the car off the lot, it's worth 20% less than you paid for it. So you're underwater on the loan immediately. Even if you sold it for book value you would lose money on the deal.

2. If you are able to pay cash but choose to take a low-interest loan and put the cash into investments that have a better return, you can come out ahead. But most people either don't have cash upfront, or are not sufficiently disciplined to do this.

3. If you own a car outright you can get by with liability-only insurance. If you owe money on it, the lender will require collision and comprehensive insurance, which costs a bundle.