The car that you own, you pay for its mileage when it is taking you somewhere you want to be. So for these reasons, you can expect a nicer car for the same money. A higher use rate means that expensive car options are less costly per trip, so people can be offered nicer features at the same cost. Deterioration happens both due to use and due to aging, so more frequently used short lifetime cars have lower aging costs, so you’d expect less maintenance costs per trip for this reason.Ī shorter lifetime means that new technology propagates more quickly. Why would it be a problem if they go from 20 years of operation at 4%-10% to 5 years of operating at 50%? The latter still means more trips per lifetime of the car. But if you’re counting on this sort of thing to not only counter the first-order more-miles-per-util effect, but to give you awesomely massive cost savings on top of that, I think this is naively SchillingĬars, unlike airplanes, aren’t built for decades of operation at a 50% duty cycle – and if they were, they’d probably cost more like airplanes than cars. And the aforementioned time value of money. Maintenance is both cheaper and more effective when done on a fleet basis. There are second-order effects that will help you. ![]() That’s more miles you have to pay for, which to a first order should make auto-uber more expensive, not less. The auto-uber, you pay for its mileage when it is taking you somewhere you want to be, or driving empty from where its last user left it idle to where you are waiting for a ride. Also, fuel/electricity is paid for by the mile. You usually accomplish this, even as a private owner, quickly enough that time-value-of-money is a secondary factor. A car is, coarsely speaking, good for a certain number of miles of driving, and one way or another you pay by the mile for progressively turning it into scrap metal. Cars, unlike airplanes, aren’t built for decades of operation at a 50% duty cycle – and if they were, they’d probably cost more like airplanes than cars. Which means it is depreciating 50% of the time. Yes, the auto-uber may be in use 50% of the time rather than 10%. Or a parent, but more to the point – is there any rational basis for this expectation? I think most people are expecting that autonomous uber becomes so much cheaper that it will be the default for anyone who isn’t upper-class See, e.g., the entire market for minivans. ![]() I get that you’re an anti-natalist, or at least play one on the internet, but for people who have children the ability to store car seats, diaper bags, favorite toys, and the steamer trunk’s worth of miscellaneous stuff that tends to follow any modern mother/child pair wherever they go, yeah, that’s probably well north of 10% and probably closing in on 50%. Is 10% of the utility of a car due to raincoat storage? 25%? 50%? But out of the realm of plausibility for most people. Is 10% of the utility of a car due to raincoat storage? 25%? 50%? I think most people are expecting that autonomous uber becomes so much cheaper that it will be the default for anyone who isn’t upper-class, and that car ownership will become the equivalent of flying first class. But what if the total all-in cost of self-driving uber is 10% cheaper than owning. Nice enough that if the price is exactly equal, ownership still wins. Never having to worry about surge pricing is nice. And I think most people who look to a future where people have given up their cars to use this service instead are assuming it will become significantly cheaper. The hypothetical “self-driving autonomous uber” doesn’t have to just become as cheap as owning a car. ![]() I don’t think anyone is claiming that the value of owning an asset versus renting/leasing an asset is zero.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |