As an American, I’m gonna barge in with my loud opinion, 'cuz that’s what we do. Here’s something which people living elsewhere might not know that Americans aren’t ready to hear:
Automobiles are luxury toys and fashion accessories, and we shouldn’t base our entire lives on them. No, the car industry didn’t make our economy strong; it took off after we already had a lot of extra wealth to burn after becoming a world economic powerhouse. We can’t afford to keep wasting all that wealth on them as the world starts to burn, and half of our citizens sink into poverty.
Ironically the ability to not have a car is also flex on wealth in the US because you would have to be able to afford to live and work in a region that is incredibly limited and expensive. In most of the US cars aren’t luxury toys, they’re a needed appliance and many employers will refuse to hire you without one.
That’s 100% due to government policy. Those places are highly desirable places to live as evidenced by the high prices, but they are limited in supply only because it’s illegal to build new ones. We used to build efficient places out of economical necessity, then for the usual reason (racism), we codified an extravagant, wasteful built environment as the default, or only, option.
Cars are still luxury toys, they’re just required by law.
That’s not exactly true. While yes, the car isn’t required but there are zoning restrictions on density of housing and mixed use spaces making the car needed to accommodate.
I’m going to stipulate here that you don’t get to have it both ways, to say that a car is both essential to American life, but not required by law. See, it’s laws that shape the human environment to make one essential: Parking minimums, building codes, zoning, lending standards, driver’s licenses as default photo ID, and so on.
If it’s laws that make cars required to live, then they’re de facto required by law.
Yes, but it’s a hair-splitting distinction that it’s not a law is not an individual mandate that each citizen own one. There are plenty of other laws that do literally require cars. For that matter, it’s required by law that we have Social Security Numbers, and that’s just a side note in a discussion about their role in our society.
Quite a few people buy cars just because they need to get places and there’s not good alternatives. Otherwise why would cars like the Sentra or CRV exist? Just making it so those folks don’t need to buy one would do a lot to make cars more luxurious and fashionable.
Those are fine examples to prove my point. Even the low-end, just-get-around cars have climate controls, entertainment systems, and plush seating. They’re about more than utility, just getting from one place to another. For the CRV, the web site for it really wants to sell the image of adventure, like driving one means you’re ready to head out on road trips, and listen to the Bose sound system while doing so. The base model is also 190hp. The Sentra is 149hp, and over $20,000 base price. Compare that to the Ford Model T, at around $6,000 (inflation adjusted). That was 20hp. Twenty horsepower, no air conditioning, no power steering, no Apple CarPlay, and people drove them across the continent.
Anyway, I just got home from some errands, and while out, I saw a guy driving a big, shiny, white Ford Model F truck, and wearing a cowboy hat. There are no cattle ranches in Wisconsin. Also, it’s January and he wasn’t wearing a coat; he doesn’t plan to go outside. The car one drives is totally a fashion statement. Driving a low-end car conveys a message about you, just like wearing off-the-rack versus bespoke clothes. Even Warren Buffett’s econobox is a statement.
And that’s leaving aside the assumption that getting from place to place has to involve a car.
People also used to sleep in houses made of sod with mud floors and wood fire heating. But we don’t now because that’s not very nice, despite it being incredibly energy intensive to light, heat, and cool a whole house and refrigerate parts of it and have thinking machines just to play games on.
I want cars to be luxurious and fashionable but not necessary. I think it will lead to cars that look and drive better, and fewer people on the roads will make driving more fun.
I’m with you on that last bit. The problem that we have with cars is the way that almost everybody is forced to use one for every trip to go anywhere, or at least forced to own a car for many trips. We can’t sustain that economically (I believe that car ownership is a financial burden for around 1/4 of Americans, and our infrastructure rates at D+ nationally), ecologically (climate change is only part of it, the direct ecological destruction is also enormous), and even psychologically (the loneliness epidemic). I’d be over-the-moon if everybody had a choice of a convenient alternative to a single-passenger car for any trip that they wanted to do, with cars as the luxury alternative.
They are also necessities, unless you have a very specific job in a large, or otherwise very specific city. Their adoption has created expectations, particularly amongst employers.
Is this one of those canned arguments that Americans are programmed to pop out when somebody questions the car-based lifestyle? Okay, then, if the United States is so big, then shouldn’t we have room to build amenities closer to where people live, so we don’t need to drive everywhere for everything?
As an American, I’m gonna barge in with my loud opinion, 'cuz that’s what we do. Here’s something which people living elsewhere might not know that Americans aren’t ready to hear:
Automobiles are luxury toys and fashion accessories, and we shouldn’t base our entire lives on them. No, the car industry didn’t make our economy strong; it took off after we already had a lot of extra wealth to burn after becoming a world economic powerhouse. We can’t afford to keep wasting all that wealth on them as the world starts to burn, and half of our citizens sink into poverty.
Ironically the ability to not have a car is also flex on wealth in the US because you would have to be able to afford to live and work in a region that is incredibly limited and expensive. In most of the US cars aren’t luxury toys, they’re a needed appliance and many employers will refuse to hire you without one.
That’s 100% due to government policy. Those places are highly desirable places to live as evidenced by the high prices, but they are limited in supply only because it’s illegal to build new ones. We used to build efficient places out of economical necessity, then for the usual reason (racism), we codified an extravagant, wasteful built environment as the default, or only, option.
Cars are still luxury toys, they’re just required by law.
Nowhere is a car required by law …lmfao
That’s not exactly true. While yes, the car isn’t required but there are zoning restrictions on density of housing and mixed use spaces making the car needed to accommodate.
I’m going to stipulate here that you don’t get to have it both ways, to say that a car is both essential to American life, but not required by law. See, it’s laws that shape the human environment to make one essential: Parking minimums, building codes, zoning, lending standards, driver’s licenses as default photo ID, and so on.
If it’s laws that make cars required to live, then they’re de facto required by law.
Okay, but they aren’t literally required by law. You’re just making a case for them being a necessity not everyone truly wants.
Plenty of people don’t own vehicles, and they are not getting in trouble with our legal system for simply making that choice.
Yes, but it’s a hair-splitting distinction that it’s not a law is not an individual mandate that each citizen own one. There are plenty of other laws that do literally require cars. For that matter, it’s required by law that we have Social Security Numbers, and that’s just a side note in a discussion about their role in our society.
Quite a few people buy cars just because they need to get places and there’s not good alternatives. Otherwise why would cars like the Sentra or CRV exist? Just making it so those folks don’t need to buy one would do a lot to make cars more luxurious and fashionable.
I like how you cite cars which are fairly reasonable options when the Mitsubishi Mirage exists.
I have one of those! Its a manual!
I thought about getting one but then I watched the crash test of a pickup hitting the side and read that they have the most deaths is any vehicle.
I sorta feel like getting hit by a pickup in anything is a bad time but I will say it is a very small car and very light.
I was gonna mention it but thankfully it’s been discontinued
Those are fine examples to prove my point. Even the low-end, just-get-around cars have climate controls, entertainment systems, and plush seating. They’re about more than utility, just getting from one place to another. For the CRV, the web site for it really wants to sell the image of adventure, like driving one means you’re ready to head out on road trips, and listen to the Bose sound system while doing so. The base model is also 190hp. The Sentra is 149hp, and over $20,000 base price. Compare that to the Ford Model T, at around $6,000 (inflation adjusted). That was 20hp. Twenty horsepower, no air conditioning, no power steering, no Apple CarPlay, and people drove them across the continent.
Anyway, I just got home from some errands, and while out, I saw a guy driving a big, shiny, white Ford Model F truck, and wearing a cowboy hat. There are no cattle ranches in Wisconsin. Also, it’s January and he wasn’t wearing a coat; he doesn’t plan to go outside. The car one drives is totally a fashion statement. Driving a low-end car conveys a message about you, just like wearing off-the-rack versus bespoke clothes. Even Warren Buffett’s econobox is a statement.
And that’s leaving aside the assumption that getting from place to place has to involve a car.
People also used to sleep in houses made of sod with mud floors and wood fire heating. But we don’t now because that’s not very nice, despite it being incredibly energy intensive to light, heat, and cool a whole house and refrigerate parts of it and have thinking machines just to play games on.
I want cars to be luxurious and fashionable but not necessary. I think it will lead to cars that look and drive better, and fewer people on the roads will make driving more fun.
I’m with you on that last bit. The problem that we have with cars is the way that almost everybody is forced to use one for every trip to go anywhere, or at least forced to own a car for many trips. We can’t sustain that economically (I believe that car ownership is a financial burden for around 1/4 of Americans, and our infrastructure rates at D+ nationally), ecologically (climate change is only part of it, the direct ecological destruction is also enormous), and even psychologically (the loneliness epidemic). I’d be over-the-moon if everybody had a choice of a convenient alternative to a single-passenger car for any trip that they wanted to do, with cars as the luxury alternative.
They are also necessities, unless you have a very specific job in a large, or otherwise very specific city. Their adoption has created expectations, particularly amongst employers.
Necessities? How did humans survive for 200,000 years before their invention?
Tell me you live in a tiny country without telling me…lol
Is this one of those canned arguments that Americans are programmed to pop out when somebody questions the car-based lifestyle? Okay, then, if the United States is so big, then shouldn’t we have room to build amenities closer to where people live, so we don’t need to drive everywhere for everything?
lol