It's an extremely inconvenient situation that Americans find themselves in, a sort of self-perpetuating cycle of car dependency that they reinforce because alternatives require far too much investment to make worthwhile.
I'm really glad that I can live in a city without having to own a car if I don't want to. It makes a significant difference to my monthly expenses. And, honestly, it's a lot nicer and feels a lot more free in many ways. Places are more accessible not less.
I can't imagine being on the bottom rung of society and having yet another awkward expense, especially because you become unreliable if you don't properly invest in the maintenance of the thing. Which might cause you to lose your income altogether.
It sucks that you need to own a car to get anywhere in most of the US. When my wife and I moved to Southern California from Chicago, we had a single car and tried to make that work for a while, but it was just not doable. We have a grocery store 2 miles away, but any other services are further than walking distance (and even the grocery store requires walking on the shoulder of a busy arterial road at a couple points. I used to bike everywhere in Chicago, but doing so here is too risky).
That said, the problems of car loans are far beyond that - From the article: " The average monthly repayment now stands at more than $750.". That's nuts! I make a solid upper middle-class income, and I can't imagine spending that much on car financing, regardless of the loan length. When we needed a second car, we bought a 6-year-old Volvo station wagon in good condition, it it's still serving us well. Many of my neighbors, who make about half what I do, think we're poor because of it.
Exactly. This is going to come off as incredibly privileged, but I'm not a huge fan of car loans. In fact, I'm not a huge fan of leveraging to afford any asset unless it's appreciating in value or generating income. I buy and drive old, nearly junker cars because I can't afford a $40K new car. I can "afford" the monthly payments on a $40K car, but it's just a terrible financial idea. Totally nutty. A $750 monthly payment (I don't even want to know the term) for something that is losing value every day is absolutely bonkers.
The amount of debt Americans routinely and causally take on is honestly ridiculous.
The standard recommendation of taking out sent so you can invest your money and "make it work for you" frustrates me to no end.
Yes, on paper I can accrue more wealth if I mortgage my house and invest that same amount elsewhere. No, I would not trade owning a house outright for having a house that will be taken from me if I can no longer pay, strict insurance requirements, and a pile of someone else's debt that I call money and ignore the risk implied in investing in someone else's gamble.
I don't think gp comment is advocating doing a cash out re-finance, but to exploit leverage when first financing the purchase.
I used to be very debt averse. Owing a six figure sum seemed like a huge burden. Now I understand that mortgagees are non-callable. If you put 20% down that removes a lot of risk of being underwater. Fannie Mae is eating inflation risk for you. It's a way of smoothing expenses over multiple life stages. With a 30 year mortgage you can get a smaller payment when you're younger, earning less, and paying for daycare. When you're older you're earning more, might be an empty nester, and inflation has made each payment easier. By not rushing to pay off low interest debt you've effectively transferred money from 50 year old you to 30 year old you.
If you stayed employed, locked in a 3% mortgage, and contributed to your 401k, you won the wealth re-distribution game of 2020-2022.
Respectfully, you're effectively describing the argument I take issue with.
> Now I understand that mortgagees are non-callable.
How are you defining non-callable? If you stop paying on your mortgage that sent will eventually be called and you will be kicked out.
> If you put 20% down that removes a lot of risk of being underwater
That removes the risk of being underwater for any market correction sub-20%. Real estate prices in any areas have grown more than that ovwr the last few years, the risk of a 20%+ correction is on the table.
> With a 30 year mortgage you can get a smaller payment
And a 40 year loan would be even smaller. Where do we draw the line, and why? 30 year loans weren't always the norm, you don't have to go too far back to find an average mortgage on 10 or 15 year loans.
> When you're older you're earning more, might be an empty nester, and inflation has made each payment easier.
Income doesn't always move up, and inflation only makes payment easier if you (a) secured a fixed rate loan and (b) stay in the same home long term.
> By not rushing to pay off low interest debt you've effectively transferred money from 50 year old you to 30 year old you.
Or if it doesn't work out, 30 year old you has a home at the expense of 35 year old you.
> If you stayed employed
That's a big if, and you not only need to stay employed, you need wages to at least keep up with true inflation. Your 401k won't matter until you are at an age where you can withdraw, or we have another pandemic-style response where we allow people to cash in 401ks without the early withdrawal fees.
The people in the camp of payoff early often highlight the emotional safety of paying off the debt…
But that logic never made sense to me, because homes are always callable: if you stop paying property taxes, Thats not your house any more.
If house burns down, Thats not your house any more.
Safety comes from optimizing your wealth for size and liquidity.
The person that kept things liquid, leveraged into the stock market 401k etc will be much better in a catastrophic event (job loss, flood, etc) than the person that has less liquid assets and a property tax payment due.
I agree - I think it’s bad advice. And cars make even less sense than houses, which should hopefully appreciate in the long run. People think of car loans like “free money” if I can buy a car on credit and pocket the spread between my investments and my APR.
The problem is:
1) that encourages you to buy more car (and lose more money in depreciation and fees) than you would if you just paid cash for a cheaper car
2) there’s no guarantee you can beat your APR in the short run (to beat your APR you almost always have to move out on the risk frontier… T bills are not doing it)
I view it as: if capturing that marginal spread of whatever% is important to you, you are spending too much money and you’re probably taking your eye off a bigger loss you’re taking by spending all that.
It’s not ridiculous, it’s how the whole system works. People need to live their lives, and if they only way they can get around (or throw a birthday party, or have a funeral, or some other human thing) is to borrow money, they borrow money. Which in turn props up a huge proportion of the businesses that make up the economy.
The problem with old junkers is that if you don’t have the money in cash, how do you fix a major car repair? You can get a loan for a new car with money.
The car “generates income” because it allows you to get to work and hopefully make more than your car note.
You can also take out a loan from a credit union for the repair bill on your older car. Or even putting it on a credit card is an option.
A $3k repair loan is a lot easier to pay off than a $30k new car loan.
A lot of the people I know try to justify “new car fever” and will use some version of “I don’t feel safe in it anymore” or “I don’t think I can trust it.”
It’s a lot easier to get a secured loan for a car than an unsecured loan depending on your credit.
I’ve only had new car fever once. When I was 25 and bought my second car - a Mustang in 1999. I drove my Mercury Tracer that my parents bought me in 1991 as a junior in high school.
But that car was wrecked in 2008. I gave my next car - a Honda Civic - to my step son in 2014 and my next car after that - a 2012 Chevy Sonic bought slightly used from CarMax in 2020 when I started working remotely and we went down to one car.
But I would still much rather by a cheap newish car that I don’t have to worry about than a beater that might put me down or more importantly my wife.
Old car repairs generally don't cost as much as you'd expect, especially when you aren't paying $750/no on a loan plus higher insurance premiums.
My mechanics often perk up when I bring in my 80s era pickup. It has very low miles, they can generally diagnose it with very basic tools, and parts are cheap. When I have the time to work on it myself I appreciate it for those exact same reasons.
Yea, that $750/mo that you're now not paying can be saved to pay for the occasional repair bill that you're going to face while owning a junker car you didn't take on a loan for. Or, not, if you bought a 1995 Toyota Camry or something which is probably going to outlive you.
You mean "rod the block next week because it was used as an uber and before that it was owned by three successive hipsters who didn't change the oil because 'lol it's a Toyota' or whatever"
Dollar for dollar Toyotas were a bad buy as soon as Reddit started trying to tell everyone to buy them.
Right. I buy old cars, but I'm picky as hell and buy ones that have been taken care of, still have parts availability, and are models with proven reliability.
I still recommend anyone buy a later model Buick Lesabre if you find one in good shape. They're very cheap, the 3800 motor is excellent, and are still very comfortable rides that get around 30mpg on the highway.
3800 is in a lot of things. Chevy impala, Monte Carlo, etc. lots of cars benefit from that reliable and easy to maintain engine. Also gets decent gas mileage (not earth shattering but mid-high 20s is friendly to most bank accounts).
Yeah I'll keep an eye out for all of them when I'm in the market. I generally find the best results with the Buicks though, its more common to find one in good shape with a good service history.
The one I drive now was a one owner, it was literally a little old lady's Sunday church car that she sold because she decided to give up her keys. Its not perfect, and the AC compressor needed to be replaced, but they were the kind of owners that took it in ever 3k miles to a mechanic they trusted and fixed whatever the shop recommended.
My first car was a Katrina-damaged Impala that smelled like puke until I hit it with an ozone generator. Drove it for almost 6 years including twice cross country. Most I ever put into it was a new water pump.
And when you buy the car hypothetically and the motor goes out or the transmission within three months?
And it’s one thing if your car breaks down on a side street, it’s completely different if it breaks down on an interstate. If you have a daughter would you be comfortable with her driving an unreliable car? Your wife? Your mother?
A car that averages 15k miles/year, has a maintenance record, and appears in good condition tends to be less likely to be a lemon than most brand new cars.
For an anecdote, consider that Jeep just bricked thousands of new cars, including on interstates 2 weeks ago.
That GM recalled most 6.2l engines made in the last 5 years; ... Toyota engine castings, bmw chain tensioners, Ford Ecoboost coolant passages, Porsche bearings... Most of these problems became apparent before a long term first owner sold (yes, you should do research)
A pre purchase inspection, and all around maintenance (brake, coolant, oil, transmission oil, and differential oil) will get you a long way; a $2k suspension refresh will take you even further.
Sure, your motor or trans can go out on any vehicle and unless you still have a warranty its your problem.
It sucks if you spend $3500 on a car only to spend another $2000 because the transmission went out and the timing was bad luck. I wouldn't recommend anyone buy an old car I'd they have no emergency fund left after the purchase though.
My wife does regularly drive our old cars. If it dies on the highway we'll deal with it. I don't have a daughter, but I wouldn't worry about my kid driving the kind of old cars I pick up - I'm patients picky, and able to work on them myself. The car would be the least of my worries if I had a young daughter with a drivers license.
This country is insanely ego and pride focused or fixated.
Capitalism exploits this in advertising.
Americans throw money at everything and then wonder why they're broke.
Or in the case of cars, people finance a new car and throw money at repairs instead of doing what folks like you and I do. Buy a reliable older car that's cheap to work on. But that takes "learning" and most Americans are convinced that learning is a waste of time, just throw money at the problem.
A common advertising technique is to exploit peoples' problems. Buy Product(tm) and your problem(s) will be solved! Sometimes this problem doesn't even exist but the advertiser will exploit your fear. If you don't buy Product(tm) for your family you don't love them/are putting them in danger/you are not a real man!
Our solution to this was two cars, with one being a tiny well used EV (2015 Fiat 500E) where the range boils down to "dont leave town". Its a fantastic city car. 50% to full is about 3 hour on a 120v wall charger, and that's enough juice to run around our town for a ~week for all kinds of errands.
The other car is a 2023 Leaf with the extended range trim, which is sufficient to get us all around the PNW, although I would hesitate to take it east of the Cacades.
It doesn’t take that much to for huge numbers of people to be able to transfer to car free existence. Zoning laws inside cities do a amazing amount to force cars on millions of Americans.
Car free access to existing transit hubs like metro stations is often horrible and not particularly expensive to improve.
Cities could create bus and bike lanes literally overnight. Load up a truck with concrete parking curbs and cones and drop them. No one is going to bike until the infrastructure makes it safe and convenient. Like safe enough to let a kid or 65 year old woman bike.
We just choose to continue subsidizing a triangle of car dependency. The government finances toll-free roads, mandates parking minimums, and enforces restrictive zoning. Businesses and real estate consumers pick up the tab on the real cost of free parking (higher rents and mortgages, parking garage construction costs). Drivers pour money into car loans, insurance, maintenance, and fuel.
This is an extremely privileged viewpoint. Even in Tokyo, people in the bottom half of the income distribution do not live close enough to popular transit lines to be as mobile as someone with a beater car in Dallas. They spend a lot more time commuting (and they can’t “just do some work on the train” because they have real jobs). Even in Tokyo, their commutes are crowded, they’re subject to the weather.
Being tied to transit lines—again, because even in Tokyo transit isn’t as convenient as point-to-point car travel—limits where people can look for jobs. That makes it a poverty trap because people can’t easily find jobs in different areas. And it makes having a family and kids much more logistically complicated. The most transit-dependent cities have abysmal birth rates.
It's only privileged because I'm living in a city that has actively prioritised other modes of transport.
I invite you to compare Orlando and Malmo.
If you have the opportunity to visit both, I would recommend it. They have the same population size (actually, Malmo has more people in it, but, close enough) yet in one it's impossible to get across the street without a car, even to go to the grocery store, and the other has entire portions of the city where cars aren't even able to go. -- Yet everyone manages to get around, and most people would consider it very convenient to do so.
Why are you comparing the cities based on whether you can get around “without a car?” In America, even the vast majority of the poorest people have a car. 96% of occupied housing units in Osceola County (where Orlando sits) have a car. American cities are optimized for that.
It’s almost certainly more convenient to get around Orlando by driving (as long as you aren’t going to Disney) than taking transit in Malmo. There is no city in the world where transit is more convenient and flexible than driving. I visit Tokyo once or twice a year, and even in Tokyo it’s usually more convenient to take an Uber than to take the train. And you’re not going to do better than Tokyo in terms of transit.
You can see this in the statistics. The average commute time of someone in the greater Tokyo area is 1 hour and 40 minutes round trip, or about 50 minutes one way: https://resources.realestate.co.jp/living/average-work-commu.... The average commute time for someone in Dallas County is under 30 minutes one way: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/B080ACS048113. And the American commute is by yourself in a climate controlled car, instead of a crowded (even if clean and punctual) train.
The reason I’m talking about my city in particular is because everybody (even the poorest) can get around without a car and I’m not talking about just public transport.
It’s very liberating, even for children to be able to get around if not everything requires the use of a car.
I am aware that Orlando has optimised itself in a certain way, which makes it impossible to be any other way. That means being mildly convenient requires a complete overhaul of the whole system just for a small select group of people which is obviously unfavourable.
One of the major benefits of not being car dependent in particular is that there are more options not just public transport, you can get around by car- but there is also cycling, E-scooters, walking is more convenient, and of course there are buses trains and taxis. There’s even a bike rental scheme which covers the entire city and is so cheap as to be effectively free ($20 per year). With that in mind I find the argumentation that poor people have a worse time to be disingenuous- owning a car is the second largest expense most people have.
Malmo by the way is one of the poorest cities of the large cities in Sweden. I don’t know what the GDP per capita is compared to Orlando, but I’m not going to think that it’s much different to be perfectly honest with you.
Are you saying that it’s faster to get around Malmo on transit than in a car? I can see that being true for some route, but it’s unlikely unless you’re wealthy enough to live and work very close to transit stations.
When I lived in New York I did have a commute where transit was faster than driving. But it was like Mad Men—I went from my fancy high rise right next to the train station to my fancy law firm right next to another train station. That was a lovely commute, even compared to driving in the suburbs. But most people in New York (or Tokyo) cannot afford to live so close to popular transit lines.
> With that in mind I find the argumentation that poor people have a worse time to be disingenuous- owning a car is the second largest expense most people have.
That’s what we call “penny wise and pound foolish.” Cars is capital equipment, and get handed down through families. Like any capital equipment, they depreciate and require maintenance. But they also enable people to earn money. I have relatively poor in laws: my wife’s grandmother raised four kids as a waitress, and her husband did hunting and odd jobs. Cars, which they carefully pass down through families, enable them to move around for better jobs and housing. When my father in law lost his job, he moved in with his mom and found various jobs in a 60 mile radius. If you look at the places in the U.S. with good transit, the poor there are structurally poor. They can’t just go to where the jobs are—they are stuck going to where the train lines go. It becomes a trap that creates generational poverty.
If I need to work to earn a living and working remotely in Europe for an American company were not an option (for some strange reason) I'd rather live in Orlando.
I admit that Europe tends to be a nicer place to live for those who have enough savings that they do not need to work and for those too sick to work.
I don't speak Swedish and I'm perfectly fine living and working here. The level of English speaking in Malmö often exceeds the ability to speak English in places in the UK. Ironically.
>I don't speak Swedish and I'm perfectly fine living and working here. The level of English speaking in Malmö often exceeds the ability to speak English in places in the UK.
That is interesting. I should explain that I edited out the part of my comment about language (because it is not relevant to my point).
I haven't been to Malmo, but I doubt that visiting a place for a short time tells a person much about what it is like to live and work there. I've read hundreds of comments from people who have lived and worked in both the US and Europe. I believe that life in Europe tends to be more orderly and pleasant than life in the US. A good example of "more orderly" is that deaths from automobile accidents are several times higher in the US than they are in most places in Europe -- and not just because Americans spend more time in cars: in the US, deaths per mile of travel in automobiles are several times higher.
>Why would you rather live in Orlando?
Because income is a massive factor in quality of life, and for any level of income, it is significantly easier to earn that level of income in the US than in Europe provided that the person in question is healthy enough to hold a job.
I'm curious whether you work remotely for a non-European organization or are self-employed at the kind of job that can be done anywhere with decent internet connectivity.
I used to work here: https://www.massive.se - Owned by Ubisoft, kinda international, 800 or so employees in Malmö
Then I worked here: https://www.sharkmob.com - Now owned by Tencent, not very international though, not really spidered into Tencent. About 350~ employees in Malmö.
After that I worked here: https://www.rennsport.gg - German company, where it was a remote company but I build an onsite office or 20 persons in Malmö. That was the largest office in the company.
Now I work for a Swedish company.
There's also a bunch of companies like ESS (European Spallation Source)[0] in Lund, Verisure and Axis communications.
Limited mobility from public transit is a much bigger poverty trap. In Oregon, where my in laws are, you can get tons of odd jobs to scrape by within a 60-minute driving radius. Even in a place with great transit, like Tokyo, you’re pretty limited to where you can go on transit in 60 minutes.
Isn't America literally the country with longest average and median commutes to work? Like, that was always an American thing - the long commute.
Also, you cant do work in car either. You have to drive and actually pay attention. You cant (or should not) just listen to podcast or loosing yourself in the music. You dont get health benefits of walking a bit or of popping int the store on the way to buy food quickly.
My point here is that if public transport and city are semi reasonably organized, the car has to be actually seriously faster to be worth it.
From my understanding this seems to include all forms of transportation (which has value on its own I guess), but it would be more interesting to see car only.
Driving is much more comfortable than taking transit. You’re by yourself and you always have a seat. Anywhere that has transit good enough where it’s frequent and reliable is also a place where you’re probably standing during your commute.
That beater car in Dallas is also a financial millstone around its owners neck, and odds are, he's already living hand to mouth, and has zero redundancy for it.
If that weren't so often the case, people wouldn't lose their shit whenever gas goes up 50 cents/gallon.
I'm glad you have that opportunity too, but purely on the financials it's probably not so much of a win when you consider the heightened cost of everything (housing in particular) in a city, right?
Cities are artificially expensive becuase we ban them in nearly every location in the US, and ban new housing in cities.
It would have been an easy fix 10+ years ago, but as the housing crisis got worse and the working class was priced out, building got a lot more expensive and we have a huge labor crisis in addition to the regulatory crisis.
All solvable, but the political establishment and the political power base (homeowners and landlords) are dead set against solving it.
Depends when you got into it. If you're an older gen, you got into that city early and are likely unburdened by high dwelling costs - instead, you've got a windfall of appreciation ahead of you.
Reality is, outside of housing, city life is generally cheaper because it's much more accessible and the tax base is better suited to covering those expenses. So, older generations get the best of all worlds, per usual.
Pull up the age demographics for any major city. The older demographics largely got into housing at more affordable times and are less sensitive to rent and mortgage prices increasing. Housing costs is a cost that OVERWHELMINGLY impacts younger demographics.
I live in Malmö which is across the bridge from Copenhagen.
It's not comparable to the US in terms of Salary, but if I compare to the same size City in the UK (Coventry), it's not more expensive to live here than there. Coventry has a decent amount of car dependency for its size.
If we're comparing to a US City, I guess Orlando is pretty close (Orlando has a lower population than Malmö), but home prices are higher. However, there are only larger houses available making the comparison a bit squiff.
You don’t have to be in a large or even a medium sized city for car dependency to be alleviated. There’s a not just bikes video about this exact thing.
Housing and transportation should be considered a single budget category. If you can get rid of a second car but pay $500/mo more in rent it could be a wash.
For lots of America alternatives don't take that much investment. Creating a safe bike network would be relatively cheap and is feasible in large swaths of suburbs.
Due to the aforementioned car dependence: points of interest are further apart from each other than in other cities with solid cycling infrastructure (in Europe for example).
Enormous car-lots several times larger than the buildings that they serve for example, sprawling 6-lane roads that take 20s to clear a junction on a slow moving bicycle, these things contribute to it being infeasible for more poeple.
Connecting the bike lanes is not a problem, though people will fight it tooth and nail because they wan't all infrastructure spending to go to cars... hence, reinforcing the issue, because when all you have is a hammer...
Yes, they are further apart than they need to be, but they still tend to be within relatively short cycling distance. At certain times cycling is even faster than driving due to gridlock traffic, even in suburbs. For example, this very moment, because the main way through town is clogged with parents picking their kids up from school.
I think a majority of the problem is cultural and/or political. I know people who take a longer drive over a shorter bike ride (due to gridlock traffic).
Bikes can reach remarkably far in flat areas if the infrastructure is there. And with a folding bike you only need 1 bus as a range extender to go really far. However lots of money is relying on both those things not happening.
> if you don't properly invest in the maintenance of the thing
For me, it's not the money that's annoying (though of course I'm not pleased by the bills every once in a while). It's the amount of time it takes to keep a car maintained! Seems like just yesterday I took a whole day remote to sit at the mechanics shop for a tire change, but now I have to do the same for an oil change! For this precise reason I end up doing a lot of maintenance late.
Or just do it yourself. At least oil changes can be done entirely oneself with a very small number of non-specialized tools. You don't even need a house with a garage, you can do it in your driveway or even on the street if you only have street parking.
As others have pointed out, tires are somewhat more complicated, but not entirely out of the realm of the home shade tree mechanic, if you're willing to invest in a few specialized tools/fixtures.
Unfortunately, there are some apartment complexes, HOAs, and city ordinances that prohibit people from working on their cars, which means either needing to find a legal place to do your own repairs or paying a mechanic. I’ve lived in apartments my entire adult life thus far, and every lease I’ve signed has prohibited me from repairing my cars on apartment grounds. I have no choice but to either find a friend with a garage (not easy in the Bay Area when most of my friends can’t afford garages) or taking my car to a mechanic and paying Bay Area labor costs.
Those rules are usually intended to prevent people from having a derelict car up on blocks "under repairs" for weeks or months at a time. No one will notice or care if you do a quick oil change.
You know you can just break the rules when it comes to petty stuff like that, right? If you're not being unreasonable or thumbing your nose at them they typically don't come after you.
>and every lease I’ve signed has prohibited me from repairing my cars on apartment grounds.
This is a direct result of the clean water act and knock on laws.
The clean water act mandates stormwater management. The solution needs to be maintained in perpetuity. The HOA is the entity saddled with this. There's various engineering calculations that go into pollutant load which impacts the size of the stormwater bullshit engineered ponds you need. In order to make the solution they are forced to build cheaper, the developer puts "no wrenching" (and a bunch of other things) in the initial HOA covenant.
The city ordinances are mostly the same. They're putting that shit in their so that the engineering numbers are better and their stormwater stuff can be cheaper.
That's not to say the snooty jerks don't like those rules for their own sake.
Locally to me, it’s pretty uncommon for any mechanics, tire shops, etc. to give any sort of timeline for any sort of service.
I recently had a 1-hour job done on my car - the only appointment my local mechanic takes is for a specific date - you drop off first thing in the morning, and they call you when they’re done.
I also just called my local tire shop to enquire about mounting/balancing (but not installing) tires - they don’t take appointments for that, but also don’t guarantee any particular speed of service - you drop off your tires, and they call you when they’re done, whether it’s that day or the next.
It's not that it takes all day to do the work. It's that you get to your "appointment" and they really haven't set aside any time for you. You're just put in line like the next walk up guy.
I keep seeing this argument but I think about whats broken in my ice over the years: brakes, control arms, struts, suspension springs. You get a pass on gearbox but as a genuine question, do these usual mechanical problems that have nothing to do with the engine jist not happen on EVs?
Bushings and suspension parts will likely have similar (or possibly worse) wear than an IC based car due to the extra weight.
Brakes a bit less possibly since you can use the regenerative braking but this also depends largely on the driver and situation.
*This is an assumption based on my experience with cars in general and doing my own repairs/maintenance not a slam on EVs.
My increasing fear is that EVs just have mechanics' eyes on them a lot less frequently, so preventative maintenance on brakes and the other mechanical parts doesn't get done. Which means, on a heavier vehicle as well, more risk of catastrophic failures during use and vehicles on the used market being junk.
A heavier vehicle also will wear tires faster, and my observation of other cars on the street is that people as a whole are very bad about not replacing tires on time.
My Model Y had to have its front control arms replaced after 4 years, it was squeaking really loud when turning. That's the only part that needed to be fixed so far, and at $250 it didn't exactly break the bank. There's the other stuff like wiper replacement and rotating/replacing tires which still have to be done. Much better than the regular $500+ annual maintenance with occasional $1000+ repair that my Honda Civic required. And that was a relatively cheap ICE to maintain.
If you look at an evs maintenance schedule it’s basically inspect stuff from time to time until 150k+ miles. Brakes don’t get changed as you almost never use them. Parts might break but not really anything maintenance wise.
First you have to get big bulky tires delivered to wherever you're going to install them on to your wheel rims. Then you need equipment to remove the old tires from your rims, and install the new ones on the rims. Next you need to balance the tires, then you need to take care of all the TPMS components. After this you need to mount your tires. Forget something? Too bad your car is out of commission til all the above is done.
When I last priced the equipment it wasn't that bad costwise. In my case though it was only worth it to get rid of the whole "dealing with tire shops" issue. A close friend owns a used car dealership and they bought the mounter and balancer. IIRC...it just needed a 240v line.
I have also lost days waiting for tire shops and alignment...as those are the only 2 things I don't do myself.
A tire machine is life changing in a good way if you have a lot of cars you're responsible for. China is starting to make mid-market ones (simple pneumatic ones that are powered bug geared to home use rather than professional like the ~$1k electric machines) for ~$400ish that I'd take seriously if I was in the market
Once you have a tire machine you'll spend more time at the tire shop (outside business hours, lol) because their trash pile will be your best source for reasonably new used tires. They sell a lot of sets of 4 when 2 would do.
definitely not easy by yourself, but the whole process (change, then alignment etc) shouldn't take a decent mechanic's shop more than a couple of hours. I've changed tires on my nearly 200k mile car several times now, and it's usually a few days for the tires to be delivered (in america the mechanic will just receive it) and a 2h appt to get the work done. I'm shocked your parent comment mentioned waiting a whole day at the mechanics'.
My friend does this at Costco, and it takes longer purely because of appt mismanagement and backup, the work itself is quick.
It’s honestly becoming a national subculture. Being a “burnout”. In tech burnout means you’re exhausted on working on things. In America “a burnout” is someone so deeply in debt they don’t even try to really pay it off, they just ignore the debt and spend money on cheap thrills when they can. Obviously not something that you advertise about yourself, but go to any bar in rural south and they know what am talking about.
As bad as the debt situation is in the US there’s not much a collection agency can do to force you to pay relatively petty sums under 100,000 they will just harass you basically.
The Roman proverb goes “The begger laughs in the face of the bandit” so burnouts spread money before it can be taken from them, then turn around and beg for more. A person who’s established this mentality, the exact amount they owe is the least of there problems.
Being on the bottom rungs is actually a lot cheaper than "HN style" car ownership. Nobody expects your shitbox to be legal, or have compliant papers all the time. You're blue collar so you know people who wrench and trade favors here and there. Boss expects you to be late a few times a month.
There's a "welfare cliff" when you try to get into a "must have reliable transportation" job though
Lower end jobs tend to be unforgiving on not planting your butt in seat at the scheduled time. I find the higher end your job the less BS you are forced to endure. e.g. No drug tests, no doctor's note to justify sick leave. If there's a layoff there's severance. Flex time.
There are some accommodations for poor drivers. Politicians loath to raise fuel tax. This shifts costs of roads from drivers onto general taxpayers. Car insurance limits are the same as in the 1970s. This shifts cost of accidents from poor drivers onto accident victims who are not fully compensated. Emissions testing and safety testing is either not done at all or waived for drivers who claim hardship.
Converting away from cars costs almost nothing compared to continuing cars. The project to put California route 37 above water near the Sonoma-Marin County line is going to cost $10 billion without adding any capacity. That's one tiny little project. And people don't even want to attach a number to the external cost of pollution.
I'm really glad that I can live in a city without having to own a car if I don't want to. It makes a significant difference to my monthly expenses. And, honestly, it's a lot nicer and feels a lot more free in many ways. Places are more accessible not less.
I can't imagine being on the bottom rung of society and having yet another awkward expense, especially because you become unreliable if you don't properly invest in the maintenance of the thing. Which might cause you to lose your income altogether.