Depreciation is something you consider if you intend to resell the vehicle. It's independent of wear and tear. It's a financial concept, not an engineering/mechanical concept. Jeep Wranglers, for example, hold a better value compared to the average even if they have higher mileage and age, especially if its in a mountainous local market.
Wear and tear is mechanical repairs and maintenance. Oil changes, tire changes, spark plugs, etc.
A good amount of people buy a certain car and maintain it, intending to run the vehicle into the ground completely.
If you really want to do the "simple math", don't forget about the opportunity costs associated with the wait times, scheduling around someone else's schedule and delays due to public transit and rideshares. That's where you realize just how much a car actually saves you. I used to live in Seattle and Portland for a few years (each). I bit that poisonous apple of, "I don't need a car since I'm going to live in the city". 15-20 minute car commutes would be about an hour on average on public transit (that's if they ran on time). Never. The. Fuck. Again.
> A good amount of people buy a certain car and maintain it, intending to run the vehicle into the ground completely.
See my 4runner that's older than I am. I am happy to give it its $400 per year in oil changes and amortized tires, along with $1500 repairs every other year because I know its repair ROI is extremely high (vs. whatever car make the reader believes is unreliable); every repair I make to it represents another XX,000 miles on the road.
I feel like you can easily get per mile wear and tear costs to be 10 cents or less on Toyotas if you run them into the ground. And with fuel at 10 cents to 20 cents per mile assuming a $2.50 to $4.00 per gallon fuel cost and 20 miles per gallon, and insurance is another 5 cents to at most 10 cents per mile ($600 to $1,200 per year for 15k+ miles), you should be able to get the cost of a mile down to somewhere between 20 cents to 40 cents.
Many cities with good public transit are still bogged down by politicians giving preference to car traffic over PT and bicycles, making journeys by PT slower and journeys by bike more dangerous than they need to be.
> A good amount of people buy a certain car and maintain it, intending to run the vehicle into the ground completely.
In such case, yearly depreciation is the cost of replacing the car with a new one, divided by the number of years until you replace it. In my calculations, I estimate I'll be driving my cars 20 years each, and base deprecation costs on that.
don't forget about the opportunity costs associated with the wait times, scheduling around someone else's schedule and delays due to public transit and rideshares
While you're factoring in intangibles, don't forget to factor in externalities caused by air and noise pollution.
I think the best intangible that needs to be taken into account is the self-righteous points. You can't put a price on how high of a high-horse you can get on. Minimalism and rent-culture is just like veganism, if you dont shove it down other people's throats are you really part of the movement?
They're saying it's okay to convince people with arguments about personal sacrifices, but if it's not hurting you directly and immediately then your argument annoys them and they don't want to hear about it.
That's what they are saying? Air and noise pollution is hurting city dwellers like my family every single god damned day. The solution: move to the suburbs and get a car like everyone else. And here we are.
If you want to bring up the value of intangibles, you then dont get to cherry pick certain intangibles that prove your point as to use them as the basis for your argument. You have to take into many intangibles, both pro and against your own stance to have a decent argument, let alone a realistic solution to the problem.
And if you actually pay attention to the argument, I dont mention to do ONE thing, as you straw manned me as saying to move to the suburbs. I say everyone needs to judge their own situations in an honest and logical fashion to better choose a solution for their personal needs. Not just listen to a random elitist trying to get on their highest of high horses to shame the rest of the population in their superficial future signaling. If you live in a heavy urban area with good public transit and high parking fees, hell no, dont own a car. It's a bad idea. But to imagine the exact same solution can apply to everywhere else in the world is a sign of a small minded twat that's never experienced life outside of their tiny bubble.
> If you want to bring up the value of intangibles, you then dont get to cherry pick certain intangibles that prove your point as to use them as the basis for your argument.
Literally what I felt you did and why I said to also consider environmental externalities.
I did not make any argument beyond that. I also did not claim you said to move to the suburbs. No idea where you get that from. It's just a thing I'm considering doing, because I can't stand the noise and pollution in the city much longer.
If I purchase something that provides a capability for a given period of time, there is precisely zero reason why I should not think of it as a fractional cost per use. And there are many reasons why I find it a useful thing to do.
I have no idea why this should be controversial.
> I used to live in Seattle and Portland
Your actual claim is you prefer living the car lifestyle somewhere non-urban. Good on you, but irrelevant to me.
But of course you count the cost of the car and not just the gas, otherwise you're not actually comparing costs.