If something looses value faster than something else it can be compared to, then it's considered as worse, meaning fewer people are going to buy it, meaning if you have one, you'll be able to afford less than others in a few years.

▲

rjdj377dhabsn 2 days ago | parent [-]

Something's ability to store value is only one factor, and probably not the most important, when you're not buying it as an investment.

A bar of gold will hold value a lot better than a car, but that doesn't mean a car is a worse purchase.

▲

Ekaros 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Depreciation is huge factor if you buy something for utility.

I think we can say that EV and ICE has nearly same utility, perks on either side. Faster refuelling vs. being able to do it at home.

Now next we can compare operational costs, what is the cost of fuel/electricity and maintenance. With home charging yes EVs are ahead.

But if we take into account Purchase price minus price you get when selling. Well EVs are often more expensive to start with. And then they depreciate more so you get less as an percentage from original purchase price.

Now it can very well be that you come lot of ahead in scenarios where you replace car with new one every 3 or 5 years with ICEs.

So total cost of ownership does matter. And big chunk of that is depreciation. Unless you are one of the few who buy new and then drive it to junk yard.

▲

rjdj377dhabsn 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Unless a 5 year old EV has lost a lot more functionality than a 5 year old ICE, that situation doesn't seem likely.

If in 5 years, your EV (that had similar utility as an ICE when you bought it) has lost so much value relative to a new EV, then the new EV must offer much more utility over both the old EV and the old ICE, in which case your ICE should have lost a similar amount of value.

▲

IAmBroom 2 days ago | parent [-]

Are you trying to use logic to convince the resale value to be higher?

▲

rjdj377dhabsn 2 days ago | parent [-]

My point is either the assumption that their functionality doesn't decrease rapidly is incorrect or that they won't continue to depreciate at a much faster rate than ICE in the future. It just doesn't make economic sense.

	▲	IAmBroom 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Neither did Beanie Babies, and yet...

▲

kreetx 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

While I don't dispute EV depreciation (it's a fact, no matter the explanation), then I don't think depreciation is as "huge" of a factor as you make it out to be. People buy new cars all the time, while the added utility over a used car is negligible.

I.e, I've only bought cars that are 10+ years (exactly due to the depreciation factor!), but most other people buy or lease as new of a car as they possibly can afford. Doesn't make financial sense to me, yet it's done so very often.

	▲	2 days ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

rurp 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why would we compare a car purchase to a gold bar purchase when they are completely different things? The article is comparing two products that substitute for each other, so it's notable that the market treats them differently. Someone looking to buy a car is either going to get an ICE or EV; not an EV or a gold bar.

▲

gregoriol 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

As I said: "than something else it can be compared to"; if we are talking about cars, you compare to other cars, not to gold or even bikes. If this car looses more value than another, then it's shit.