[mdorazio]

And, you know, basic financial planning... For the vast majority of people, renting basic unsubsidized transit methods on a daily basis costs far more than owning and operating your own. Good for you if your financial situation allows you to ignore that fact, but it’s rather yuppy bubble thinking to assume that applies to everyone.

[jschwartzi]

Aren't you ignoring the hundreds of billions in public subsidies that your "basic unsubsidized transit methods" enjoy? Cars are expensive and our emphasis on subsidizing car travel at the federal, state, county and city level is an enormous regressive tax on the poorest members of our society for whom $1000 or $5000 is an impossible amount of money.

[Rebelgecko]

Even if you make an apples to apples comparison (cost of renting a scooter vs cost of buying one outright), renting doesn't really make sense if it's something you want to use regularly.

For a 10 minute commute daily commute, the break even point for buying a scooter vs renting one comes in less than 60 days.

[ryan_lane]

This s only true if you are buying a good, reliable scooter, which requires a high up-front cost that many people can't afford.

Look up the boots theory of sociological unfairness. You're able to save money this way because you can afford something sturdy and reliable, whereas poor folks, if they buy something, buy something that is cheap and will break quickly. They'll need to do this over and over again, which in the end causes them to spend considerably more money than you.

Rental scooters (and bikes and e-bikes) may feel like they're more expensive in the end, but they're generally much cheaper, when you consider repairs or replacement, and especially when you consider theft (which will be covered by your insurance, but poor folks don't have that).

Also, most scooter/bike rental companies have outreach programs for poor communities, which drastically lower the cost, or provide service for free.

[zymhan]

Basic financial planning would indicate that owning a money losing asset (i.e. car) is not a good idea.

I can assure you I've spent far less not owning a car, even with every Uber ride, car rental, scooter rental, transit, and taxi ride.

[jjeaff]

No, basic financial planning would take into account both sides of the equation. I can own a money losing asset as long as it is costing me (including depreciation) less than what an alternative service would cost. Uber will never work out unless you drive very infrequently or live somewhere like New York where the total cost of vehicle ownership is prohibitive.

Additionally, depreciation is not linear. I drive an older vehicle, it has already mostly depreciated as far as it will go.

[danans]

> Basic financial planning would indicate that owning a money losing asset (i.e. car) is not a good idea.

Only if you have an alternate way to get to work like good public transportation. Otherwise buying a depreciating asset like a car is the only way to survive in many places. It's like paying rent. Perhaps not ideal, but it is a practical reality for many.

[leetcrew]

every day I drive ~20 miles to work. for car ownership to be economic, the cost per trip just has to be less than uber or the difference in pay between my software gig and a job I could walk to.