[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.

[icebraining]

You do realize you're arguing against yourself, right?

[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.