Don’t Pay for 95% (2016) | Hacker News Reader

Don’t Pay for 95% (2016)

5kids1condo.com

2 pointsrognjen4 comments

> Yet we consumers love to envision the maximum usage for a particular item – like a house or a car – then buy the item with a capacity high enough to accommodate our visions.

It's one step worse for houses. Even a single person should buy a "starter home" with 3 bedrooms in a good school district. Why? Not because the single person wants it, but merely because home buyers are encouraged to think that this makes the house easier to sell later, and even single buyers like yourself will not want an unsellable house.

I would like to see numbers. I can't imagine this is actually any cheaper but it is less flexible.

This will always be situational.

I live in Switzerland, pay about CHF6 per commute day for the train, roughly 4 days per week. That's CHF96/mo.

A parking spot for a car is >CHF200/mo, on just one end. So even if I bought an econobox, the expenses would probably be CHF500/mo without even driving it.

Because of these economics, I just rent if I need to. We have an app here, and while it's not cheap (both an hourly and per-km charge), I would have to use it quite a lot to cost more than even a basic car, and that basic car is itself limited (i.e. it's not a van when I need one).

TBF, It's hard to separate the cost of the rental from the perceived value of the activity. Spending CHF30 to go to a further away grocery store seems like a waste, unless you can force yourself to consider the savings from not having a car in the first place. So you tend to talk yourself out of doing things that you would have done if you had the sunk cost of having a car, the same way that a compact car owner might talk themselves out of a long road-trip because of luggage space or comfort.

  You will own nothing and be happy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com