* being a mechanic (so you don't have to pay $500 for a $200 job).
* having a job with flexible hours (This happens on the way to McJob and your late? McBye Bye.)
* having someone else dependable with a flexible job (Friday night and everyone know you know is working at McJobs?)
* having someone to take care of your kids so the kid is at home/daycare/babysitters and not freezing in your car
* having spare money so the choice isn't food vs radiator
* being able to easily adjust to different circumstances.
Not everyone can lose a car and adjust with minimal effort. car breaks down and you expect McJob holder to be able to afford another car? thousand(s) for fix? downpayment on a replacment in short order?
All of this revolves around the fact that he's in a good place, and able to count his blessings. If all you got out of this is "you gotta be a mechanic" then you need to re-read it.
“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
"Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
"But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
I have a good friend that always struggled with money - rent, food, you name it... yet somehow has an expensive car with expensive insurance. He makes 1/2 what I do (or less) yet somehow drives a car worth 2/3x more than what I drive (just got a new used 2011 Honda Civic).
Generally you become, and stay, a millionaire by saving money. It's why so many people can win Millions in the Lottery and be broke a few years later. Getting money is only the first part. The second part is keeping it.
I have a pithier version: Being poor is really fucking expensive.
But yeah, the guy's problem isn't that he bought a used car. It's that he bought a used luxury car. They're not exactly designed for reliability or easy repair.
Can't reply to neckro23, and I don't know why. But he made a comment that the problem with the article is they bought a used luxury car not designed for repair. My question: Are ANY new cars designed to be easy to repair? while my old Bronco isn't the easiest to work on, it is much more "mechanical" in nature, with lots of room in the engine compartment and under the body to do work. I wonder what it's like to do non-trivial repairs on a 2015 F-150.
I have a buddy with a late 2000's F350. The head gaskets blew and the first step of the repairs was "Remove the body from the frame." Not something I'd like to try.
This is a good point, and why it usually be framed in a different way, that some people get rich by being very value-oriented. It's about getting the best bang for the buck.
Poor people do this all already, just with beater Fords and Chevys instead of old ass Mercedes. And instead of fixing it themselves they just pay someone, which makes it even harder.
The Mcjob holder gets a ride, runs the risk of their kid getting cold, makes the choice between food and fixing their car.
You have to be good at repairing cars, but probably not an actual mechanic. An actual mechanic may not make enough to afford the parts.
I had a truck that was less than reliable in the past. I had all the know-how and tools to fix everything myself, and even had the money to buy the parts. But I shed a single tear and then traded it in for a newer, more reliable car because, while I was making good money, I had been sitting in my driveway at 8:05am still trying to crank the engine over a few times too many. My boss wanted me there at 8, not 9:15 when I was able to get a ride from someone else.
And that's half the point of the article. If your job demands you be there on time, you can't own a clunker even if you can afford to fix it and know how to fix it.
My personal solution has been to own two clunkers, but my wife says it's a personal sickness on my part (I like clunkers).
I blame the fact that while I am not personally a redneck, I am descended from a very long line of rednecks and can't remember a time when we didn't own at least one car that didn't run.
And that's not even counting the beloved "donor" cars. :-)
Just think of it as "cloud transporting". One automobile instance goes down, fail back to another. You could start a new business like... maybe EngineYard? :)
That is almost exactly how I view it. I can buy two super cheap cars for less than one very reliable one, and when it's something that I can't fix cheaply or quickly enough I sell off the car and go buy another.
I also stick to the one pay check rule for cars, in that no car I buy should cost more than one paycheck, although I did make an exception for the van we use to haul the younguns around in.
You not only have HA cluster, you can also do some load-balancing - this way you have two cars with 30k miles on each instead of just one car with 60k :)
Just basic math - which one setup will depreciate faster?
My solution was to buy another clunker when I was in the financial position to be able to afford having two cars. It hasn't stopped running yet, the real challenge will be convincing the wife to let me keep it after it does stop running.
There's something relaxing about spending a weekend under a truck, putting it all back together, and driving it around knowing it's only alive because you saved it.
What shops charge and what mechanics get is two different things. My company charges $100+/h for my time, but I make far less than that.
Two friends who work as mechanics make $20/hr (senior-level) and $8/hr (junior level). Mechanics can make good money, just like programmers can make good money. But there are an awful lot of programmers out there making comparatively nothing.
Not to mention there's a huge difference between a used car with 890k! miles vs. a used car with closer to 70-100k miles. Sure that Lexus is a well built Toyota with good reliability, but at that mileage you're going to be expecting things to break. On the other hand if you get a less than 10 year old car with under 100k miles, unless it's known to have major issues, you shouldn't have nearly the amount of problems.
I did not get that from the article at all. Just that there are certain costs to owning a used car that you don't usually incur when owning a new one.
I thought the author was acknowledging that he was better equipped to deal with those costs than someone else might be in a different life situation. And for those other people, it might actually make more sense for them to own a newer car even if it might appear at first blush that they were being less responsible with their money than we might think they should be.
In other words, there's no such thing as a free lunch.
I thought the author was trying to ingratiate himself with people who use "privilege" as if it were an actually smart thing to say, even though he mocks those same people ("Normally I consider the use of the word 'privilege' in a conversation to be the brilliant peacock plumage that identifies a third-rate pseudo-intellectual from ten paces away").
The article needs a new title. "You gotta be rich to own a car with almost a million miles on it" would be much better. Of course, this is a pretty obvious thing to say, so it probably wouldn't get as many clicks. But at least it would be honest.
It makes no sense to talk about costs of "owning a used car." The costs involved in owning a two-year-old midrange Toyota with 20,000 miles on it are completely different from the costs involved in owning an ancient luxury car that's driven the equivalent of to the Moon and back twice.
Buying a Lexus with 900,000 miles on it is so unusual that there's no way to generalize the story beyond it.
I'm not sure what it read when you wrote this comment, but it currently reads "to own a cheap car." Used is implied, certainly, but I don't think "barely used" is part of it.
Basically, a two-year-old Toyota with 20k miles doesn't qualify.
Which "it"? The comment I'm replying to says, "Just that there are certain costs to owning a used car that you don't usually incur when owning a new one."
In any case, there's a wide universe of cheap cars (and what exactly is the threshold for "cheap" anyway?) just as there is a wide universe of used cars.
The article should have been: You gotta be a mechanic to own a cheap luxury/sports car.