[gaius]

100% luxury

Actually, not owning a car is a luxury. How do you get all the stuff you need/want that you don't/can't fetch yourself from the source? You pay someone else to drive it for you! Same with people who talk about Uber, like paying for someone to drive you around isn't a luxury...

[Certhas]

It entirely depends where you live whether a car is a luxury or a necessity. I grew up in a tiny village, where it was a necessity. now I live in a major European city, and it would be a luxury item. Something that sometimes saves me some time on the public transport, or the need to carry a few shopping bags a couple of hundred meters. I have a car sharing account but can rarely justify the cost of it when public transport is ubiquitous.

[Corrado]

I think that may be the difference. Public transportation in Europe is generally much better than it is in the U.S. In most of America, you can sort of get around using busses but for the most part, you have to have some sort of personal transportation. And our bus system is not really designed/built for normal people everyday travel.

[pawn]

I was going to say the same thing. There are very large parts of the population that will never even have this option, no matter what they make. I live 8 miles outside of town. No uber driver is going to come pick me up. You might argue that it's a luxury to live in the country, except that 19% of the US population is rural. It doesn't make economic sense and it's not feasible for everyone to live in a city. Housing is cheaper out in the boonies, which is a necessity for some. I personally just don't mind the trade-off of convenience and like the benefits.

[JoeAltmaier]

It may be luxurious to use Uber (?) but if its cheaper can it really be called a luxury?

[ghaff]

>if its cheaper can it really be called a luxury

No. But for a lot of people, it is a luxury to have the freedom and flexibility to not require a car to go to your job(s), get your groceries delivered, etc.

There are situations where you can reasonably do without a car and save money vs. a minimum "clunker" car considering everything including housing prices etc. But they're in the minority, especially once people aren't urban singles.

[icebraining]

The Chinese must be must richer than I thought, considering that 85% have the "luxury" of not owning a car.

[Cerium]

In many ways this statement is right. In cities the first floor of every house is a shop. If you don't want to cook breakfast walk across the street, one of those families runs a breakfast shop. The population density is high, so there is a bus stop on your street corner. Depending on the city traffic gets so bad that the brt or subway can beat driving. So, for some of that 85 percent not having a car is a luxury unavailable in most cities in the U.S.

[harpiaharpyja]

You're being disingenuous; The GP is talking about the luxury of not needing a car.

[icebraining]

GP is the one being disingenuous; yes, some people have even more luxurious lives than car owners, but that doesn't mean owning a car isn't a luxury.

[ghaff]

And subsistence farmers in many areas of the world have 0% car ownership, so they clearly have luxurious lives.

[TheCoelacanth]

You are right that a car can make it cheaper/easier to live at a certain standard of living. However, some people can't afford to live at that standard of living at all and have to make do without the lifestyle improvements that they could have if they had a car. Hence, having a car is a luxury.

[icebraining]

How do you get all the stuff you need/want that you don't/can't fetch yourself from the source?

We do without them.

[gaius]

Like umm groceries? How do you think they get to the store within walking distance? Or post to your letterbox?

[icebraining]

I, like most people I know, carry groceries on the bus. You get one of these[1] and use a little arm strength (or ask for help if you can't). Yes, sometimes we spend a lot of time (possibly hours) going to and from the grocery shop.

[1] http://images.esellerpro.com/2152/I/585/38/XS0665_festival_t...

[bryondowd]

Depends where you are. Where I'm at, I can either drive to the grocery store in 15 minutes, or I can walk a mile to the nearest highway where I can make a fairly dangerous crossing to try flagging down a bus that comes about once per hour, with very little regularity and often fails to stop. Then the actual trip to the store, another brief walk, and I'm limited to what I can carry, so instead of going to the store about once or twice per week with no more than an hour of transit time, I'll probably be spending a solid 4-9 hours per week travelling to get groceries. One hour per trip walking from house to bus and back, half an hour on a bus, twenty minutes walking to the store and back, multiply by 2-3 times per week. Add an extra hour every time a bus is missed or doesn't stop, which would be at least once or twice per week.

And that's not even touching trying to get to work, which takes me about 15 minutes in a different direction, and I'm not aware of any public transport that would get me from here to there without routing me in some other direction first. I could probably take on a part time job in the time I'd spend walking or riding buses.

It just wouldn't make sense for the majority of people in my area.