Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "How Cars Keep You POOR!" video.

@jlj5487 If you've got the job offer in writing, then sure. But that isn't exactly a common situation, so it wouldn't be the best advice for the largest amount of people watching. I understand that you have to spend money to make money, but being risk-averse is just human nature. And it's not without reason.
2
@jlj5487 Yes, you can. "Searching" is much easier now thanks to the Internet, and if you live in a crappy city, then you're going to have to work around the bus schedule. Tough. Also, I still don't get why it's somehow wise to buy a car in the expectation that a job you applied to, will pay off your increased expenditure per month. Secure the job first, then get the car. Or, just get a crappy car. Or take a taxi. A one-time interview is not worth sinking your next 5 years into if you don't actually, you know, GET the job. Don't put all your eggs into a single basket, is what I'm saying. Multiple taxi rides is still cheaper than the monthly plan for a car. Not to mention parking, gas, insurance, maintenance, etc.
1
@jlj5487 Ah yes, your one example is proof that you should always buy a car if there's a chance that you'll get a better job! I don't know what disqualifies me from talking about the job hunt— literally everyone over the age of 16 can speak with authority on the matter. If it was that hard for you, then maybe you should just move. What city did you live in anyway? The only place I can think of that's both rundown and lacks cars would be L.A.. Even Chicago and Detroit have public transport. Unless you're a migrant worker trapped in Dubai, I have doubts about your story. Even assuming your anecdote is true, that's not a reason to spring for a car without having a job that can pay, at the bare minimum, for your auto loan— you know, the means by which you get to the job? Take that fucking taxi. That it's "out of the way" is his problem, not yours. Again: is (even) a $50 taxi ride more expensive than an auto loan? Let me put it in simpler terms, since you seem to like examples: _"I was looking for a job, and got a callback. My interview is on Friday! So on Thursday, I'm going to buy a car with a payment plan. ...Turns out I didn't get the job, but I've still gotta pay off this car, with my current income... uh-oh."_
1
@jlj5487 Again, refer to my previous comment. Buy a crappy car. Save up until you can pay in cash, or in short, large installments. "Don't quit your day job" is a phrase for a reason. Or just move. To a less expensive area, or one with better job opportunities.
1
@charleslombard4432 Cost per use goes down enormously over time, whereas cars need to be replaced every 10 years or so (that's being a conservative driver). Because public transportation is usually seen as a common service, it is often over-engineered to cost less to the government over the span of decades (or centuries in England's case, with London's sewer system), as opposed to a completely privatized operation.
1
@charleslombard4432 Agreed! Many in the US see it as the panacea of transportation, but it won't solve all our problems, nor is it even applicable everywhere. Part of the reason we have roads instead of tracks (besides lobbying and bribery in the 1940s from oil and auto companies) is that the U.S. is big. Really big. Maintaining that amount of track for towns that barely use it simply easing economically smart or possible back then. Roads are cheaper to make, and postwar America had no idea how roads could impact drivers and change over time. So that's what we went with. Oh, and London is the exception, not the rule. I have acquaintances in Poland, Russia, France and Germany. All their systems are cheap and efficient, but only because everyone uses them. Not sure why England's is so expensive, must be the high maintenance costs (the Tube is hundreds of years old, after all).
1
@charleslombard4432 Interesting! My friends are from Lyon and Marseilles, and I don't have many details from them, but they seem okay with (as you said) the downtown area of both cities. It honestly surprises me that London, or any city, would need to charge so much for a ticket to ride, given how many people use it per day- I assumed that would cover at least part of the maintenance cost. In Warsaw and St,-Petersburg, the metro system reaches a balance between London's and Paris': it is not too expensive, and the lines don't extend too far into the city, anything beyond 10 miles and you need to take a tram or a trolley. And I am very saddened to hear about the delay to Rueil-Malmaison's line. But it seems that it is taking London's approach now, no? Of course, politicians need to (an American expression) grow a pair, and cooperate with the other party to finish the line, but rushing to finish it may not be the best idea either. That could lead to delays or reparations, making the whole project a waste of time in the end. Maybe they just lied about the ending date to get people to agree to build it? Just my opinion, but if there is any context that would change my mind, let me know.
1