These jobs basically allow you to take a line of credit out against depreciation on your vehicle. Sure you lost money, but you get cash today.
$2000 will get you a pretty decent vehicle and is probably a better investment than a $1000 repair.
I've since realised that cars are very expensive and you should probably not take a job that requires a lot of driving around in your own car if you don't get reimbursed for it.
As a pizza delivery driver, your pizza shop is your base and you only go out when there's an order that needs to be delivered. My friend used to work at Pizza Hut and he was getting reimbursed for gas (per mile but it was slightly more than his gas mileage so i suppose it covers for wear and tear?).
As far as i know, you're not getting reimbursed for delivering DoorDash and the pickup location could be on the other side of the town.
With pizza delivery, you have to drive to the person's house then back. So you cover the same road twice for a single delivery.
But with DoorDash, theoretically, then could see there's an order from A to B, find a driver near A, have the driver deliver to B, then match that driver up with an order from near B to near A. So the driver could do 2 deliveries in a single out and back trip.
With the assumption that you are going to eventually pay that $3 back into your vehicle, by paying for repairs or buying a new one, you basically just "borrowed" money from your vehicle.
so wouldn't it then make more sense to just sell the vehicle for $10003, then place that money in an interest earning asset like a bond, rather than "borrow" from the value of the vehicle?
chii is suggesting you sell the car. That converts the entire car at once. Then you don't have to spend any hours! As an optimization on top of that, they suggest you store the value in a bond, and pull $3 per hour out of the bond instead.
The real problem with this idea is that selling the car leaves you with no car.
Your objection that "you need the cash now" is based on a misunderstanding of chii's idea. chii's idea does get you all the cash now. It gets you the cash far far faster than $3 per hour. It gets you the cash so fast that you could actually invest almost all of it and pull out $3 per hour and do things you actually want to do during those hours.
It's not "buy a bond, have no money today, have more money tomorrow".
It's "buy a bond, drain the bond for $3 an hour today, have more money tomorrow".
Compared to having 10k under your mattress, the bond has no downside.
The bond is not the problem with the idea.
The problem is that you have no car.
Unless a car is a certain model, it's a liability instead of an asset, so it should be treated like any other expense. If you only use the car for local trips and commuting and taking the bus/biking is doable (perhaps less convenient), then buying a cheap car, keeping a few weeks of food on hand, and taking the bus to work whenever the car breaks down is likely way cheaper than buying a newer, more reliable car.
I used to have two cars (married with kids, so one car for each parent), and then decided to start biking to work to improve my health. I noticed that I can bike most days, and the insurance alone was enough to convince me to deal with the occasional inconveniences (e.g. when it snows, I bike to the bus stop).
The problem is that most people don't actually do the math and just assume that owning a car is better, when it's not most of the time.
it is better, since you cannot do a spur of the moment trip without a car.
It's just that some people over-pay for a car, so you're right about most people not doing the maths.
The deliverer has to be able to earn $1.15 (at least) per dollar depreciated from the vehicle for the work to be "worth it".
(Income - expenses) / hours worked = hourly wage
Is your hourly wage reasonable? If so, it may make sense to optimize away your expenses and generally stay the course. If it's not, would changing your work hours or location make it reasonable?
Unfortunately, I get your feeling that people only look at the income and ignore the rest of the equation (hey, I got $50 tonight! I had to drive 100 miles though...). If you're making $3/trip, you had better drive less than 6 miles or you just lose.
Then maybe you ask why they don't have a cheaper car.
Generally, a cheaper car costs far more to maintain. The total annual cost of ownership of a 2-year-old Camry is far lower than a 10-year-old Camry. But to get that lower cost, you have to temporarily convert more of your money into that car asset.
End result: your cash is stuck in your car, and DoorDash/Uber/whatever lets you liquidate it without selling your car.
That’s a poor example, since a Camry is notoriously reliable and needs minimal maintenance. And ten years really isn’t that old. The depreciation on the two year old car would outweigh the maintenance on the ten year old car. I believe that 5-10 years old is the sweet spot for TCO.
Really? Maybe 10 years ago but cars have become remarkably good recently. I wouldn’t expect a 10 year old car to give you many problems beyond maybe the difficulty of sourcing parts.
Examples:
- Direct Injection : Good for Emissions and Fuel economy, but many first generation systems have carbon build-up issues (Toyota D4S and -newer- Ford Ecoboosts don't have this problem because they have 2 sets of injectors)
- All the transmissions: Ford's DCT is notorious at this point for reliability issues, Hyundai's DCT is not looking so hot so far, Nissan's CVT is a joke, Subaru's CVT is a bit of a diceroll as to whether it blows up at 100k or not, the ZF 9 speed that many manufacturers uses has issues...
I'll note that SOME of these are newer problems, but most of them started happening around 10 years ago and are only finally getting smoothed out.
As a counterpoint, however, the costs of all of these newer safety systems is driving up repair costs in accidents, as well as the insurance premiums for newer cars.
But you can’t argue direct injection is worse than older fuel injection. You save more gas, get better performance (even though you don’t get as many valves), and have a cooler running engine with direct injection. That’s a net positive for the environment and your wallet over the life of your car
A lot of people see car payments as being "normal" and a necessary expense. I have never had a car payment, so adding $200+/month is not something I'm going to consider. However, many people don't have any real cash in savings[1] 40% would struggle with an unexpected $400 expense, 20% don't have $400 in the bank. Personally, I keep at least $500 in cash at home, and I keep enough to cover my single largest "expected" sudden expense (e.g. replace my car), or last at least 3 months without pay (6 months right now since I'm a contractor), whichever is bigger.
The culture around debt is truly alarming. People pay $20k+ at 4+% to drive a car that may be more "reliable", when they could pay ~$10k at 0% (or enter your opportunity cost here for keeping cash) for a car that's approximately as reliable over ~5 years. If both follow the same depreciation curve, buying an older car with cash is way better than buying a newer car on credit. My advice is: buy a cheaper car, pay yourself whatever the car payment would've been on the more expensive car, and use that fund to replace/repair your cheaper car (never pay more than 50% of the value of your car for a repair). I would be very surprised if the majority weren't better off buying older cars with cash than newer cars with credit.
- [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/20/heres-why-so-many-americans-...
A financially well-off family may have multiple cars, a garage, and some spare time. They can incur the risk of an old cheap car much more easily.
It’s true, though, that you could look at it as a draw-down on a car loan.