> You can sell your car after using it for 5-10 years. Same goes for your house, phone, watch, laptop, apartment.
Seriously?
Well, all right, houses and apartments are still securities. But how much does a 10-year-old car depreciate? I'd expect it to lose 70%-90% of the price of a new one. Phones, laptops, even non-mechanical watches — they lose close to 100% of value over 10 years unless you can sell them as collector items.
Imagine that you could own a nice jug and come buy your milk with it. Nice, and your children could reuse the jug or sell it. But most people prefer to buy milk in disposable cardboard and plastic containers. Possibly, in 30 years they will use a different (but still disposable) container entirely.
Good point, but selling an item is not the only security/value ownership provides.
I can do what ever I want with the item.
I can use the item whenever I want.
I can still lend the item to someone.
Etc...
Also, you don't have to necessarily sell the item once its lost all its value, but prior to that.
And actually, I do this with my MBP every few years. I buy it intentionally, because I know its value isn't going to decline as fast as other laptops.
Still, after 5-10 years you at least get SOMETHING out of your car for example, in contrast to all those Uber-rides you took 5 years ago.
BTW.: These examples were probably not the best ones. I'm trying to think about better ones right now...
I see your point: ownership provides better control. You can do things that are not possible with a rented item. Sometimes this makes perfect sense. I'm glad I'm not renting my computers and can do whatever I please with them.
Still for some other items for which the amount of control you need over them is acceptably low, you can rent them. I'm fine buying a ride in a subway train or a taxi.
These two approaches have different strong and weak sides, so they will probably coexist for a long time. What we see now is that people start to need less control or maybe even less use of certain things. I don't own a car which is perfectly reasonable in NYC; if I lived outside a metropolis I'd own one. Not owning a house has drawbacks but also has upsides; possibly these upsides, like more mobility, start to overweigh the downsides. For instnace, living in San Francisco or on Manhattan is quite possible when you rent an apartment, but buying a house there is mostly for millionaires.
Careful about drawing a false equivalence here. I think I can see what you're trying to say, but for example owning a car has both an opportunity cost, and a high depreciation cost.
It's entirely plausible to end up financially far ahead by not owning a car (The same can be true for housing in some markets). Of course this depends on your usage, but it is plausible. So if you want to argue about the (very real for some people) less tangible benefits, you can't ignore the fact that these may come at a very real financial (i.e. opportunity) cost.
Seriously?
Well, all right, houses and apartments are still securities. But how much does a 10-year-old car depreciate? I'd expect it to lose 70%-90% of the price of a new one. Phones, laptops, even non-mechanical watches — they lose close to 100% of value over 10 years unless you can sell them as collector items.
Imagine that you could own a nice jug and come buy your milk with it. Nice, and your children could reuse the jug or sell it. But most people prefer to buy milk in disposable cardboard and plastic containers. Possibly, in 30 years they will use a different (but still disposable) container entirely.
Technology moves too fast.