• n2burns@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Sorry, that’s just not true. Some costs are fixed, or have a minimum, but many depend on distance driven. Obviously whether the “majority” of costs are fixed depends on how much you drive/localized costs/etc, but very few people have the “vast majority” of their costs fixed.

      If you want sources, feel free to look it up yourself, but here are a few showing the breakdown of ownership

      P.S. You actually reminded me, insurance changes with how much you expect to drive! As well, driving more increases the odds that you’ll get into an accident, which can increase your premiums.

        • yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          The argument was not whether fixed cost exceed the variable cost or vice versa.

          The argument was that a lot of people severely underestimate the actual cost of any given trip because they only account for (a subset of) the variable costs (i.e. gas).

          And it’s true. Rarely anyone does full costing when it comes to cars because „the fixed cost are there no matter how much you drive“.

          • bluGill@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            @yA3xAKQMbq

            @fuck_cars @DontMindMe @Caradoc879 @n2burns @InquisitiveApathy

            the argument in this thread has been about if fixed vs variable costs where more. I fully agree cars are expensive no matter how you do the math, and most people underestimate it (in part by only considering gas). However I stand by my claim that once you have the car you may as well use it as the additional variable costs from all optional trips is tiny (I’m assuming that you have the car for some purpose that cannot be done by something else - towing the proverbial boat for example).