Some of the default numbers in the calculator do seem high to me, but that’s not the point. Not owning a car does save a lot of money. Do you own calculation with your own numbers if you are skeptical. I linked to this one because I think it is comprehensive.
I’ll unpack what I mean by “how much you’d save”. The savings is between two hypothetical situations. So yes, given the choice between buying a Lamborghini and not, you’d “save” money by not buying one. The same applies for a yacht. This language is commonly used colloquially.
Even if you didn’t include inflation, you’d end up with a large number for the default settings: about $275,000. This isn’t like the iPhone case Aleksander mentioned. Cars are quite expensive, and people do actually pay hundreds of thousands of dollars over their lifetimes. If your issue is with the inflation, consider the cost without inflation. If the duration is the issue, look at the costs for a single year. If you have a particular problem with any of the costs cited in the calculator, I’d be interested in learning which costs you think are unrealistic and why. Otherwise, I don’t understand your argument.
Doesn’t that make you suspect that this particular way of comparing things is nonsensical?
It makes perfect sense to me even if it’s not strictly correct. Your pedantry is what makes the least sense to me here.
Let’s say someone is buying a house. There are two houses which are more or less identical, but house A costs 10 times as much as house B. Do you not think it is makes sense to choose house B because it “saves” money? The car ownership comparison is between two vehicles, not between doing nothing and buying something if that is your issue.
My general problem with the linked-to web page is that it is precisely the thing that LW tries to teach to ignore.
It is not helpful advice or good evidence—it is a blatant attempt to force the reader to a predetermined conclusion. It is deliberately dishonest.
I don’t like manipulative propaganda which tries to pretend it’s just supplying facts.
I am seeing a trend. You make many assertions without evidence. Explain why you think this is “manipulative propaganda” or how you know the author is “deliberately dishonest”.
The most you’ve indicated so far is that you don’t like the investment analogy, though you ignored the part of my post that showed the investment analogy is not necessary to show that not owning cars is cheaper, or that you think the specific numbers in the calculator are “dubious”, but you have neglected to specify which you think are dubious.
If the calculator is trying to force the reader to a predetermined conclusion, I don’t think the author of it is doing such a great job given that you can change every number in it.
We agree that the million dollar number is high, and I do think the rate of interest is too high in the calculator. But, I’m afraid you’re being vague and hyperbolic otherwise.
There are two houses which are more or less identical … The car ownership comparison is between two vehicles
I’m sorry, are you asserting that a car is “more or less identical” to a bicycle?
This is turning into a pissing match which I don’t have much interest in at the moment. I stand by my opinions which you are, of course, free to disregard.
I’m sorry, are you asserting that a car is “more or less identical” to a bicycle?
No, the point of my analogy was to highlight the cost difference part of the reasoning, not to say that cars and bikes are largely equivalent. Both have very different advantages and disadvantages as means of transportation.
This is turning into a pissing match which I don’t have much interest in at the moment. I stand by my opinions which you are, of course, free to disregard.
Given that you already seem to have disregarded much of what I’ve written, I’ll oblige.
Some of the default numbers in the calculator do seem high to me, but that’s not the point. Not owning a car does save a lot of money. Do you own calculation with your own numbers if you are skeptical. I linked to this one because I think it is comprehensive.
Can I save more money by not owning a Lamborghini? How about if I don’t own a yacht, can I save a few millions that way?
This forum declares it is in favor of raising the sanity waterline. The linked-to calculator lowers it.
I’ll unpack what I mean by “how much you’d save”. The savings is between two hypothetical situations. So yes, given the choice between buying a Lamborghini and not, you’d “save” money by not buying one. The same applies for a yacht. This language is commonly used colloquially.
Even if you didn’t include inflation, you’d end up with a large number for the default settings: about $275,000. This isn’t like the iPhone case Aleksander mentioned. Cars are quite expensive, and people do actually pay hundreds of thousands of dollars over their lifetimes. If your issue is with the inflation, consider the cost without inflation. If the duration is the issue, look at the costs for a single year. If you have a particular problem with any of the costs cited in the calculator, I’d be interested in learning which costs you think are unrealistic and why. Otherwise, I don’t understand your argument.
Doesn’t that make you suspect that this particular way of comparing things is nonsensical?
Yes, it is commonly used to mislead.
My general problem with the linked-to web page is that it is precisely the thing that LW tries to teach to ignore.
It is not helpful advice or good evidence—it is a blatant attempt to force the reader to a predetermined conclusion. It is deliberately dishonest.
I don’t like manipulative propaganda which tries to pretend it’s just supplying facts.
It makes perfect sense to me even if it’s not strictly correct. Your pedantry is what makes the least sense to me here.
Let’s say someone is buying a house. There are two houses which are more or less identical, but house A costs 10 times as much as house B. Do you not think it is makes sense to choose house B because it “saves” money? The car ownership comparison is between two vehicles, not between doing nothing and buying something if that is your issue.
I am seeing a trend. You make many assertions without evidence. Explain why you think this is “manipulative propaganda” or how you know the author is “deliberately dishonest”.
The most you’ve indicated so far is that you don’t like the investment analogy, though you ignored the part of my post that showed the investment analogy is not necessary to show that not owning cars is cheaper, or that you think the specific numbers in the calculator are “dubious”, but you have neglected to specify which you think are dubious.
If the calculator is trying to force the reader to a predetermined conclusion, I don’t think the author of it is doing such a great job given that you can change every number in it.
We agree that the million dollar number is high, and I do think the rate of interest is too high in the calculator. But, I’m afraid you’re being vague and hyperbolic otherwise.
I’m sorry, are you asserting that a car is “more or less identical” to a bicycle?
This is turning into a pissing match which I don’t have much interest in at the moment. I stand by my opinions which you are, of course, free to disregard.
No, the point of my analogy was to highlight the cost difference part of the reasoning, not to say that cars and bikes are largely equivalent. Both have very different advantages and disadvantages as means of transportation.
Given that you already seem to have disregarded much of what I’ve written, I’ll oblige.