Parks with all the other people? Locked in a room in a 300 sq ft apartment with your family/roommates outside?
The interchange allows you to live far enough away from the overcrowded city that you can own a bigger piece of land where you’re not packed in with your neighbors like sardines so you can actually go outside and sit and be alone without hearing 15 other families doing shit. It also allows you to have enough space to have a workshop space for hobbies or a garden or whatever else you want to do.
You understand that Italy has areas that are not as densely populated as the city center. In fact some places are down right rural. And the US has some very densely populated square milage.
This is such a wild, wild take on the US’s cat centric build.
I agree with the premise of this sub. The way car first places such as the US does things is a problem. The cars themselves and the underlying infrastructure, such as that exchange.
But I also don’t want to live in cramped multidweller unit housing. I’ve done so most of my life and I hated it.
I don’t know what or even if there’s a good solution that accomodates both, but I hope so.
And if you’re someone that wants to live somewhere actually remote, having dense urban areas instead of suburban sprawl will leave more space for rural areas and nature.
I am no expert, but if we are allowed to design everything from ground up, I believe personal electric vehicle (e-bike etc, abbreviated as PEV) for suburb, transit/bike/walk in city, and high speed rail between cities are probably the way to go.
City should be mostly car free, people can transit to suburb via transit, and to other city via rail. People move within city using walk/bike/tram. Vehicle besides delivery and commercial vehicle should be discouraged from entering the city, by removing in-city parking and setup no-go zones for private vehicles.
Even in the U.S. most people in suburb live rather close to a town center (less than 15 mins with PEV or bike). Thus efficient transit from town center to city can be a good idea. People will be discouraged from driving to city due to the lack of road and parking within cities.
For long form travel, people should move via high speed rail. Then take local travel options once arrived. High speed rail provide a faster and more comfortable travel alternative to driving.
Finally, I believe for people living in rural areas (an hour to any town center on PEV), cars and electric cars are their only option. If they want to enter city or suburb, they can drive to the nearest town center and take transit.
Most country, urbanist or not, do have wilderness, where you can live and die without people know.
You don’t need to live in the city if you dont want to. You can live off grid, and burn your own feces for heat if that is the life of your choosing. What people here are fighting for is to keep this living style is outside of cities.
Basically, city is not the place for giant emotional support vehicles. And outside traffic should not disrupt the normal form of transportation in cities, which should be dominated by public transport, walking, and efficient personal vehicles (like bike, scooters, wheelchairs, etc).
Interestingly, with this type of town, it’s easier and quicker to go out of the town than in American car centric towns.
Public transports are more efficient. You don’t need cars. You have parcs and actual green space. The energy consumption is also reduced.
It’s no magic that they built these type of towns in the past. They couldn’t afford our type of energy consumption and land use. And, it was more practical for the daily life.
/s is not actually entirely accurate in this case. Here’s an article on how US residents are trying to live in their cars by finding “safe parking lots” to reside in: theguardian.com/…/safe-overnight-parking-lot-slee…
So in the richest nation on Earth, cars do double as housing.
The /s was for the “Checkmate” bit 😂 Technically, of course you can use your car as a dwelling. But it’s certainly not an answer (or at least, not a serious one) to a lack of housing supply, I think we’ll all agree.
(゜o゜) How you did that? Posting from another community and that post from that community showing as a like a reboot in this community?! I have never seen that before. Also congrats UK.
Yup, at UK minimum wage 17 year olds would have to work 9 hours a week just to pay for car insurance. Then there is road tax, fuel, MOT, repairs, and buying the car in the first place.
Yes. Owning a car is a constant expense. For something that gets used a small percent of the day.
I rent if I ever need a car. The rent by-the-minute schemes near me include charging or fuel, insurance and everything for ~25ct/minute. Ideal for local trips with passengers. Otherwise I bike everywhere in Munich.
Agreed. Moreover, I’d like some more insight in the consumer patterns of Gen Z. A pie chart would be nice including groups like eduction, healthcare, subscription services, entertainment, etc.
I have a feeling, without the data, that a lot of young people are spending way more on novelty and entertainment things than ever before while they’re complaining about not being able to afford things.
IDK why, but this reads like just about what every generation says about a younger generation: bad decisions, worse with money etc.
Even if Gen z were spending a larger percent of their income on luxury items, I’m certain it pales in comparison so their lower average income and higher average housing costs.
Your previous comment really reads as “Kids these days can’t afford housing, too busy with their avocado toasts and Netflixes” which is the likely reason for all the downvotes.
I can’t fix people’s narratives. I’m asking for data to illustrate the measurable impact of the economy on people’s personal finance and leisure over the decades.
For one example, to compare 2020 to 1960, what is considered “leisure”, what does that cost, and what percentage of a person’s income is spent on it. I’m not really interested in polls where “Gen Z says they’re struggling to afford a car” because that’s subjective and relative. It’s not at all about questioning their anecdotes; I’m curious what the graph or pie chart looks like over the decades.
I think, and am asking for something to prove me right or wrong simply because I’m curious, that there’s more leisure and luxury available to all people today than ever before. And I feel pretty strongly that the culture of consumerism has grown much stronger over the past 30-50 years making everyone feel like they need to spend more than they were in the first half of the last century.
Productivity Purchasing Power in The United States peaked in the '70s late '60s. The country’s overall productivity sucks today [see below comments]. I believe the numbers show that we’re all spending more of our income than we ever have before. And for those “earning” a salary based on archaic values set decades ago, it’s certainly logical they’d be most hurt by the culture of consumerism that’s so rampant today.
Also, I’d be very interested to compare the graphs to credit card debt over time. It’s too easy to click a button on our phones now to have something charged to a card without the stress of seeing it coming directly out of our checking account. This use of technology, I think, is a real factory for younger people who haven’t grown up learning how to balance a checkbook or the need to save real cash money to make major purchases. The success of services like Mint and Acorn and Chime indicate this isn’t my imagination.
No one likes when someone says your opinion is irrelevant when they’re asking for tangible numbers. I’m well aware that the economy is harder for young adults today. I’m also well aware that most people on the internet are ultra-sensitive and lack reading comprehension. There’s a large segment of the internet that can’t be bothered to read more than headlines and watch ten second TikTok videos. I know younger people aren’t the only ones guilty of this, but I have doubts they’re not the primary culprits.
I really did want to take your comments in good faith but asking for data and then turning around to say something completely and blatantly false (and easily verifiable) is making that hard.
Yeah sure, there’s more leisure-type purchases available to us than ever before, and technology does make transactions ridiculously easy. However, the current economic situation for young adults is much too dire to attribute entirely to individual factors when clearly this is an issue on a societal scale.
“Purchasing power” is the metric I’ve been thinking about.
This decline in purchasing power means low-wage workers have to work longer hours now just to achieve the standard of living that was considered the bare minimum half a century ago. epi.org/…/raising-the-federal-minimum-wage-to-15-…
Here specifically is the web page I’ve kept in mind when referring to productivity (and I admit that off the top of my head “the 70s” was a bit off).
In fact, had the federal minimum wage kept pace with workers’ productivity since 1968 the inflation-adjusted minimum wage would be $24 an hour. aflcio.org/what-unions-do/…/minimum-wage
I concede that “young adults” and “low wage workers” shouldn’t be confused.
I’ve edited my previous comment. Thank you for the point.
I have a hard time understanding how you can present this information (people working harder and longer for less purchasing power than before) and arrive at the conclusion that young adults’ personal spending habits are to blame. The system is clearly engineered to keep the majority poor and enrich a tiny minority.
Want to know where the profits from the increase in productivity went instead of worker’s wages? I suggest looking up CEO wages from the '50s to the present day, and compare with the chart from my previous comment.
the conclusion that young adults’ personal spending habits are to blame.
At what point did I ever suggest anything close to a conclusion or blame? But since you didn’t ask, I blame Reaganomics, consumerism, and the deregulation of Wall Street. I blame the exportation of jobs for pennies and the mistreatment of workers. I blame disinterest and carelessness and I blame our value and reward of ownership over generosity. I blame “The New American Dream”.
Can’t you stop whining about being a victim for a moment and consider the implications of studying the history of economic and personal finance patterns to plan for the future? I am utterly bored of the repetitive copy/paste talking points and the whining with zero proposals for a solution other than “the boomers did it to us” and we’re all out of ideas.
Look at the real historical data. Present hard evidence and propose how the country is doomed for economic turmoil in ten to twenty years. A couple of charts and anecdotal polls aren’t going to push congress to do anything. No one cares if you can’t afford to buy a car when the economy says people are loaded with money right now. I mean, General Motors just had their best year since 2019 so they don’t care if young people aren’t buying cars. So prove them wrong. I want to prove them wrong - why don’t you?
This is what I mean by you can’t fix people’s narratives. You’re blinded by your grief. No one is saying it’s your fault. You, like the boomers before you, are so self-centered that, unless you get your faces out of your screens and fix this shit, you’ll end up being responsible for a country worse than it’s ever been (slavery aside / if it makes it through this election cycle). I’m absolutely terrified for future generations.
I really don’t get it. I don’t get all the stories and anecdotes and complaining yet no one has provided a full story of the reality of personal finance over the decades. Maybe this does exist and I just don’t know it - it’s probably paywalled. But it seems that without it, this “discussion” exists to divide us and generate clicks and ad revenue and political and corporate control. It’s bullshit.
I have a feeling, without the data, that a lot of young people are spending way more on novelty and entertainment things than ever before while they’re complaining about not being able to afford things.
Here, in that first comment, is where you suggest that young people’s spending habits are to blame for them not being able to afford things.
Can’t you stop whining about being a victim for a moment
I hardly see how I’ve whined during our exchange, it feels to me like you’re having a conversation with someone who exists in your head and not me. We seem to agree on the major parts but I just can’t understand your obsession with tying personal finance into the struggles capitalism is imposing on the current working population. It’s largely irrelevant on a societal scale.
I really don’t understand where you’re coming from and this comment in particular is all over the place. Best wishes, hope the world isn’t too rough on you.
Everything I’ve seen has said that Millenials and younger are spending more on experiences and less on things, but also that their purchasing power is much weaker than their parents’ was at the same age. Millenials, I think, have about half the purchasing power as the Baby Boomers did in their 30s and 40s.
Also of note that I just saw the other day is that the price of cars has jumped up about 30% since 2021.
So, not exactly what you’re looking for, but some of the stuff I’ve seen/heard that probably plays contributing factors to this.
I think being priced out of the housing market influences a lot how likely you are to spend your money on experiences. It seems like that’s all young people can afford, the mortgages these days are daunting even for people much older in good positions.
Good info. Yeah, I’m just curious to see a clear comparison laid out. I think being able to literally visualize it would be more conducive to the ongoing conversation. Tough to trust what one cohort on the internet says about their personal experience. Seems like everyone online is broke yet increasing interest rates tell another story about the market overall.
Yeah, unfortunately, I don’t think one really exists. I’m sure there are people who have done the research, but you’re probably not likely to find the info laid out like that in a major news article or something. There’s also a major generational divide in terms of wealth and a disparity between the rich and poor in the US that’s been described as being comparable to the conditions just before the French Revolution, when a loaf of bread cost the same as the average worker made in a day, so looking at market forces like interest rates and such can paint a very different picture from what the average person is experiencing because of how weighted the averages are by the wealthy.
About a month ago, I watched an unrelated video that happened to have some very well researched info in it on the economic situation of Millenials called The Perpetual Infantilisation of Millennial Women. Great video that I pulled some of the info from for a similar conversation. It’s definitely worth the watch for that info alone. Some of the stuff I remember are things like 43% of Millennials own homes, well below the average of 65% per generation. And of those who don’t own a home, 52% aren’t saving for a house, often citing reasons like poor wages or joblessness, showing that many aren’t buying homes not because they’re buying them later than previous generations, but because for many the idea of owning a home straight up isn’t considered feasible. Another big one is that only 20% of houses are affordable for the average American worker, compared to (I think) 63% in 2016. This kind of stuff has led to Millennials not buying material goods like nice furniture because they’re just going to have to leave it behind when they inevitably move to their next rental.
It’s a really multi-layered issue that definitely goes beyond the “the kids are choosing not to buy cars” or “Millenials could afford a house if they’d stop buying avocado toast or Starbucks!” takes that you often see in the news.
I guess you can check the median age of people getting their driving license first time. If is getting higher, is probably because younger people don’t care enough to get it, because past generations couldn’t afford cars ar 16 neither.
Ok, I get you. I love in latinamerica and was using my experience as the standard, when here is a more American/European centric site where experience may vary.
I’m right there with them. I spent 7-8 years in a larger city and enjoyed not having a car the entire time. No renting a parking spot or fighting over who gets to block in who with the upstairs or downstairs neighbors. No snow shoveling or scrambling to park on one side for street sweeping.
I’m now temporarily in a place where buses are at an hour interval and only go to 1 place so I took one of the family cars. Despite the car being “free” I’m paying more than an unlimited transit pass on insurance alone, and I have a great rate at the expense of having to let my insurance track my accelerating / braking through GPS/accelerometer (at least for a few weeks before I can uninstall the app and enjoy the lower rate). I’ve had to pay for an inspections, tags, fixing a tint that was legal at home but illegal where I am now (over $100 even if I just had them remove it), and I’m still needing to spend on extras like oil to top up in between oil changes, new wipers, coolant, and it’s looking like it’s almost due for tire rotations, brake and transmission flush, and other regular maintenance which is just another expense.
The car was free and it’s so expensive still. I miss being able to hop on a bus and zone out too.
We had a really promising, progressive city councillor run for Mayor who basically tanked their campaign by making investment in cycling infrastructure one of their main platforms.
So, instead, we got a business-as-usual developper friendly mayor who will continue to do nothing to address public transit issues, or improvr cycling infrastructure besides painting a few lines on busy roads.
It is sad but many who want this kind of change end up having their careers ruined as it goes against “the status quo” and the “character of the neighbourhood”
I think the major issue is that most people see bike lanes as removing their choice to drive, rather than adding alternatives to make driving easier. These people pushing for change need to look at the MAYA principal principle, meaning they use the Most Advanced, Yet Acceptable vocabulary to ease in the transition.
Anyone who wants to platform for biking and making better urbanism needs to instead focus their campaign on being fiscally responsible and tackling traffic concerns. If pressed, they can say that there are lots of data showing that small, cheap changes to the road infrastructure can make a large impact in both traffics and taxes.
My wife purchased a Subaru Legacy Premium new in 2018 with a MSRP of $23,000 and we looked at the exact same model but in 2024 because they added some safety features. The exact trim Premium for 2024 has a MSRP of $31,000k. That’s a 39% increase in 6 years. Same motor, looks nearly identical, just has collision detection and a better center console screen. We could have got those in the top trim in 2018 for $5k more.
You don’t really have to buy a new car though, do you? Especially not using a loan. Nearly everyone I know, young or old, poor or well-off has a second hand car.
Didn’t really have to but it was at sweet spot for trade in, $15k, was at the point it need new tires and registration. Tires $600+ and registration in Washington $300.
It was actually seeing $15k trade in that got me thinking about it since it was pretty close to our purchase price. Stupid MSRP went way up.
You could say Gen Z “chooses” a lot of things. Gen Z “chooses” not to buy houses (we can’t afford them) Gen Z “chooses” to be mentally ill (not even 10 years ago, “autism” was just “the weird kid”) Gen Z “chooses” to rent Gen Z “chooses” not to buy food Gen Z “chooses” to let climate change fuck the earth Gen Z “chooses” to not have kids (although here we actually don’t want them, but also couldn’t afford them) and so on.
We both work and have money for car but just insurance, technical and emissions control… is more expensive than public transport ticket (for one year in our city). And we didn’t count in petrol and parking.
In short for us it just doesn’t make economical sense to own one.
fuck_cars
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.