It's not clear that it is illegal to shout "fire" in a theatre. Even the Supreme Court Justice who originally expressed the idea had doubts on the topic.
Buying old, cheap used cars is a fool's errand UNLESS you enjoy working on them yourself AND have the flexibility and free time to do it.
I agree that buying a car that is too old can cost you more than a newer car, but that doesn't mean you have to buy a new or CPO car.
My wife and I have bought about 25 cars in our lives. 5 of those were bought new. I have never bought a CPO. I only bought one used car from a dealer. The oldest car I have bought was 40 years old.
All those used cars have been far cheaper to run when depreciation is considered than the new vehicles. All of them. And I don't do a lot of work on the cars myself (with the exception of the 40-year old car (now 60 years old).
One car I bought was a Ford Thunderbird. It was 15 years old when I bought it. It cost me $1800. I ran it for 3 years, with one repair (done at a local shop for $500) and at the end of that time, it developed a catastrophic problem, so I scrapped it. So that is less than $800/year. There isn't a new or CPO car in the USA that will cost less than $800/year (apart from your Wrangler), when depreciation is taken into account. Another older car I bought, I ran for 9 months, did zero maintenance and sold it for more than I paid for it.
My daughter bought a 15-20 year old car a couple of years ago, ran it for two years. No repairs needed, then it got written off in an accident. The insurance company paid her more than she had paid for the car.
I have a Subaru, which I bought from a private seller. Prior owners had experienced depreciation of about $4000/year on this car. My depreciation has been about $1000/year. Repairs (all done professionally by a local shop) have cost nowhere near $3000/year.
Also, insurance is more expensive on newer cars.
I have heard that some manufacturers (eg. Chrysler) design parts with a minimum lifetime of 100,000 miles. However, other manufacturers appear to design cars with the intent that the car should last longer. The vehicle that I have owned with the biggest repair costs: a Chrysler. Perhaps there is a connection between those two facts? In other words, when buying an older car, it's important to consider the manufacturer.
And depreciation costs? Meh...
Your "Meh" suggests that you really are not accounting fully for your depreciation costs. Most people don't.
1. GP could have bought cheaper cars. 2. Modern cars are a lot more reliable. There is a reason the average age of cars on the road in the USA is about 12 years. I own a 14 year old car (being driven by my daughter now) and I could put a new engine in it and still be way ahead on costs versus a new car. 3. Almost everyone (probably you included) underestimates the cost of depreciation and doesn't add in the increase in insurance premiums on newer valuable cars.
We pretty much live paycheck to paycheck on the current income, by the time you consider the costs of raising 3 kids and the (I think reasonable) decision for both of us to buy nice, newer model vehicles to drive around.
I hate to break it to you, but if you are living paycheck to paycheck, then it's not a reasonable decision to buy "nice, newer model vehicles to drive around.". You should save some money from your vehicle expenditures and get out of your paycheck to paycheck financial situation.
And too many jobs are in arkansas or some other horrible place where they hate you unless you're a WASP and no starbucks or whole foods.
They also underwent a re-org of their IT some time back which resulted in 4 silos instead of one IT department. This whole effort is probably driven by politics between the silos.
The starting wage for a pilot at a major carrier is $70-80 an hour with the ability to have a contractually guaranteed minimum of 70-80 hours a month.
The problem with that is that pilots can't just start at a major carrier. Typically, they have to work for many years at a minor aviation company of some sort, earning less than some bus drivers, with a punishing work schedule.
The pay rate you are showing is not a career-starting salary.
Correct, they are criminals. They steal, that is their crime, this is my principled position.
You claim that you are against government. That means you are against laws, which in turn, means that stealing is not a crime, because, without government, crime has no definition. It doesn't exist.
In other words, your position is not principled, because it conflicts with other beliefs you hold.
Chicken and egg. People didn't often move thousands of miles away from their families until we had airlines to bring them closer.
Yes. All those Irish and German people who formed the bulk of the US population in the mid 20th century flew from Europe. Then, there were the Chinese who flew from China to help build the railroads. Oh, and I should not forget the people who were brought over in slave planes from Africa. </sarcasm>
This is why I no longer fly.... But they won't. As we see every day, people are too stupid to say no to injustices such as this.
That's great if you don't have family and friends thousands of miles away or across oceans. It's not stupidity that makes many people fly: it's the desire to see their families.
So you DO have a choice, choose a provider that doesn't share their customers metadata with the government.
You are living in an alternate USA.
In the real USA, the government insists that all telecom companies provide that metadata on demand, without a warrant. You cannot choose a company that will not "share" that data with the government.
the only reason we lost 'Nam was the press was paying attention and they wouldn't let us kill civilians indiscriminately
Watch the Ken Burns documentary on the Vietnam war. It doesn't support your contention that the USA lost because it was restrained in its action. By the time the press started reporting on what was really taking place, the war was already lost. It's just that it was politically impossible to acknowledge the loss until later.
Slashdot Mirror
https://www.hybridcars.com/fue...
Hydrogen is just fossil fuel in disguise.
Their terms of purchase make no mention of the app, so this looks like AXS is breaking their contracts.
It's not clear that it is illegal to shout "fire" in a theatre. Even the Supreme Court Justice who originally expressed the idea had doubts on the topic.
I agree that buying a car that is too old can cost you more than a newer car, but that doesn't mean you have to buy a new or CPO car.
My wife and I have bought about 25 cars in our lives. 5 of those were bought new. I have never bought a CPO. I only bought one used car from a dealer. The oldest car I have bought was 40 years old.
All those used cars have been far cheaper to run when depreciation is considered than the new vehicles. All of them. And I don't do a lot of work on the cars myself (with the exception of the 40-year old car (now 60 years old).
One car I bought was a Ford Thunderbird. It was 15 years old when I bought it. It cost me $1800. I ran it for 3 years, with one repair (done at a local shop for $500) and at the end of that time, it developed a catastrophic problem, so I scrapped it. So that is less than $800/year. There isn't a new or CPO car in the USA that will cost less than $800/year (apart from your Wrangler), when depreciation is taken into account. Another older car I bought, I ran for 9 months, did zero maintenance and sold it for more than I paid for it.
My daughter bought a 15-20 year old car a couple of years ago, ran it for two years. No repairs needed, then it got written off in an accident. The insurance company paid her more than she had paid for the car.
I have a Subaru, which I bought from a private seller. Prior owners had experienced depreciation of about $4000/year on this car. My depreciation has been about $1000/year. Repairs (all done professionally by a local shop) have cost nowhere near $3000/year.
Also, insurance is more expensive on newer cars.
I have heard that some manufacturers (eg. Chrysler) design parts with a minimum lifetime of 100,000 miles. However, other manufacturers appear to design cars with the intent that the car should last longer. The vehicle that I have owned with the biggest repair costs: a Chrysler. Perhaps there is a connection between those two facts? In other words, when buying an older car, it's important to consider the manufacturer.
Your "Meh" suggests that you really are not accounting fully for your depreciation costs. Most people don't.
Perhaps GP's problem wasn't the car, but the shop or shops he was taking it too.
1. GP could have bought cheaper cars.
2. Modern cars are a lot more reliable. There is a reason the average age of cars on the road in the USA is about 12 years. I own a 14 year old car (being driven by my daughter now) and I could put a new engine in it and still be way ahead on costs versus a new car.
3. Almost everyone (probably you included) underestimates the cost of depreciation and doesn't add in the increase in insurance premiums on newer valuable cars.
I hate to break it to you, but if you are living paycheck to paycheck, then it's not a reasonable decision to buy "nice, newer model vehicles to drive around.". You should save some money from your vehicle expenditures and get out of your paycheck to paycheck financial situation.
I think it is a generational thing. As my kids moved out to their own places, they never got cable TV. Only cable Internet.
Indeed. You are a "cord-never". I suspect that most Millennials are "cord-never".
The validation might take a few lines, but other than that, I see nothing that cannot easily be done with "find".
Let's start with what should we call the "peanut"? It's not a nut.
If the gold does exist and is recovered, what will so much gold coming onto the market do to the price of gold?
Why send a ship into battle carrying so much gold?
They also underwent a re-org of their IT some time back which resulted in 4 silos instead of one IT department. This whole effort is probably driven by politics between the silos.
The problem with that is that pilots can't just start at a major carrier. Typically, they have to work for many years at a minor aviation company of some sort, earning less than some bus drivers, with a punishing work schedule.
The pay rate you are showing is not a career-starting salary.
You claim that you are against government. That means you are against laws, which in turn, means that stealing is not a crime, because, without government, crime has no definition. It doesn't exist.
In other words, your position is not principled, because it conflicts with other beliefs you hold.
Another way to utilize the tax rebate is to lease a vehicle. The lessor gets the tax rebate and uses it to reduce the price of the lease.
What???
Let me introduce you to Tesla's Factory in Fremont:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Because in the Orwellian nightmare that the USA is heading towards, in most states, "Right to work" really means "Right to fire".
I was simply replying to your incorrect post.
I know better than most what it is like to move thousands of miles away from family, and yes, planes are important.
Yes. All those Irish and German people who formed the bulk of the US population in the mid 20th century flew from Europe. Then, there were the Chinese who flew from China to help build the railroads. Oh, and I should not forget the people who were brought over in slave planes from Africa. </sarcasm>
That's great if you don't have family and friends thousands of miles away or across oceans. It's not stupidity that makes many people fly: it's the desire to see their families.
Really?
I provided a useful link that specifically discusses the point and you spout ill-informed bullshit about how you think it works.
Read the link.
You are living in an alternate USA.
In the real USA, the government insists that all telecom companies provide that metadata on demand, without a warrant. You cannot choose a company that will not "share" that data with the government.
Watch the Ken Burns documentary on the Vietnam war. It doesn't support your contention that the USA lost because it was restrained in its action. By the time the press started reporting on what was really taking place, the war was already lost. It's just that it was politically impossible to acknowledge the loss until later.