Hacker News Reader

Comment by ponector | Hacker News Reader

Iphone is a luxury. The same way as a personal car is. Or automatic coffee machine for at home use.

Is coffee itself a luxury? Cause automatic coffee makers are just as cheap as any other method of making coffee these days.

Aluminum moka is cheaper than machine. To pour boiling water into the cup with ground coffee is even cheaper. And we are not talking about beans itself, which are all sorts of quality.

I would have guessed you could get a coffee maker for $10 anywhere but it seems they cost $20 nowadays. Still even a $10 mocha pot would be a luxury by that definition when you can make folgers cowboy coffee and drink it out of the single pan that you use for everything.

Something can be neither luxury nor necessity. Coffee is one example.

Coffee is a luxury. It is a very carbon and labor intensive product of growing fruits in tropical areas, only using the seeds, throwing away the pulp of the fruit, transportation, roasting grinding and then the semi boiling of the seeds before it reaches your cup. White sugar might be cheap in price but it's unnatural and has many processes which are also very intensive in labor.

And then also think about carbon footprint of keeping animals in cruel tight cages and force then to eat only coffee fruits to gather coffee beans in their poo and sell for 100$ per kilo.

Iphone is a commodity. Think different.

iPhones are only commodities to iPhones, which if you accept that definition means that everything is a commodity. An iPhone is not a commodity to most other phones.

A personal car is only a luxury as long as you feel good about mooching off your friends whenever you need one.

Why would you do this? You can use a bus. Or scooter. Or bycicle. Or walk. Or dismiss journey, maybe it is a luxury itself?

In the US, in Manhattan, you can probably make do. And there are other cities where you can probably manage with some combination of Uber and short-/longer-term rentals. And just foreclose on certain types of activities for the most part. But I suspect for a lot of people out of school, "I don't need a car" means the same thing I did as an undergrad, namely lean on people who had one.

You can get by in a lot of cities, like Seattle, without a car if you don’t have kids. You don’t even need to bum rides. Even in LA, I wouldn’t have bought a car if it wasn’t for my wife getting pregnant.

In Boston/Cambridge I could probably get by if I mostly didn't leave the city but I know lots of people outside the city and I do lots of activities that would be outside the city. Unlike Manhattan, the assumption is that you have a car as an adult if you aren't right out of school. There's one job I had (for about 1.5 years) that I could have managed without a car.

I think you're generally OK if most of your activities work via transit and Uber. As you suggest, as well, kids and pets probably make things more difficult.

In several parts of Seattle you genuinely don't need a car, with few compromises. Virtually everything is walkable. Even many of the popular trailheads in the mountains have seasonal bus service. Just about the only time I use public transportation is when I take light rail to the airport. I know quite a few people that live this way.

I do own a car but that is only ever used for traveling to another State or to get into more remote parts of the mountains. For anything else, using a car would be inconvenient.

I'd probably be similar if I lived in Boston/Cambridge these days without a need to commute. I wouldn't use a car day to day. But I'd use one to go to outdoor activities or to visit people outside the city. Even if the economics didn't quite work out, I'd want one customized for my liking just so I didn't need to think about it.

Why would I mooch off friends for car access when I can just rent one?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com