Cars are a source of economic inequality

>If we used automobiles only when they were actually necessary

Good luck getting people to do that, especially in America.

True, it is culturally ingrained, but the younger generation will drift from old ways.
All we need are people in government who represent low-car across the whole political spectrum, not just as a "greenie" or "left" movement. Maybe then, the infrastructure will exist for it to catch on.

fastcoexist.com/3027876/millennials-dont-care-about-owning-cars-and-car-makers-cant-figure-out-why

>Light rail and busses
...do nothing to alleviate traffic. You cram all the city-slickers onto buses, and the roads are now clear for suburbia's commute into the city. You get all of suburbia onto light rail, and the roads are now clear for out-of-towners to commute into the city.

The more congestion you get off the road, the faster traffic moves, and the further a car can travel in any given time. That means if traffic flows twice as fast, people can (and will) commute in from twice as far away, until the roads are gridlocked again.

Light rail and buses let you cram MORE people into cities, but traffic will never go away so long as there are roads.

perc.org/articles/study-building-roads-cure-congestion-exercise-futility

>kys yourself user
>kys yourself
>kys
>yourself
Why.

Fucking lol! Can't afford to take the bus across the city? Move to a small town. My parents were poor as fuck but they would be a 1000 dollar car and make it last year's with probably 200 bucks a year maintenance, I'm so triggered I had liberal need cucks like you. You have a shot job and can't afford a car because your not working hard enough. Everyone is so concerned about economic inequality, it's called working hard, the harder you work the further you'll get fuck I'm mad.

The less people driving the better.

Ride your little cattle car to your little meatgrinder minwage job and accept your place.

...or grows some balls and do what you gotta do to win the rat race. Welcome to manhood, don't get cucked.

This. I'm far-right but there is no reason why America should be the only developed nation in the world without cost-effective, reliable public transportation. Besides, giving poor people cheap, subsidised transport to save them thousands on car costs over their lifetime is much more agreeable than just giving them blanket welfare because they use half their monthly income on car payments and insurance.

>That means if traffic flows twice as fast, people can (and will) commute in from twice as far away, until the roads are gridlocked again.

At least with people commuting from further away, employment is less limited by location. Property values further from the city centre improve and there is less residential crowding.

All true. Opie's still a cum-guzzling retard for thinking this thread belongs on Veeky Forums, or that he could Grand Tour(tm) on newly deserted highways if only more of us plebs would be so kind as to crowd onto buses for him.

Not everyone lives in the city, faggot.

>brother used to work at a supermarket

Sorry about your white trash family. Hope none of them OD on fentanyl.

America is a massive country and not everyone is packed into a city
Public transportation literally isn't viable in any way shape or form for the vast majority of the nation

>crowd onto buses for him.
Bitch pls. I'm sweating it out on my bicycle every day to save you road space.

On the other hand, there are also people who live three blocks from their work and drive there. It's that kind of degeneracy.

Sweat more, faggot.

Work 70 hours a week and you can buy a fucking boomer's Corvette in a year. I did it with pizza delivery.

I can't believe people complain about 30 hours being hard.

Maybe they like driving to work
Maybe they go and drop off or pick their kids up from school
Maybe they take lots of stuff with them to work
I usually only drive 5 minutes to work but u have a ute full of tools

so in your opinion every car should be 70hp turbo fwd shitbox for muh empeegees and environment?

>found the GM fangirl

Where did I say that.
You're wouldn't be pigeonholing, would you? That's not intelligent discussion.

Where did I say that.
You're wouldn't be pigeonholing, would you? That's not intelligent discussion.

We need to use automobiles sensibly , so we can have guilt free vee ates.

I think you should take your fedora and go back to your native website, friend

you can just move out of the city faggot

Move to Russia queer-bait.

>they use half their monthly income on car payments and insurance.
That's why they're poor in the first place: poor impulse control and lack of foresight. If it wasn't cars, they would be blowing their money at the dog track.

Not comparable. If your city has been really badly GM-Fucked, you sadly need a car.

You don't need to bet on dogs to hold down a job.

Stop being so fucking poor op.
Im poor as fuck too but i work hard and im able to afford all of my bills, cars, dumb shit, and still put money in Savings.

I get what you're saying, but that's a bit of a stretch.

For example, if I make $12k a year working full time before taxes (which I get back anyway) and spend 6k a year on rent in even the shittiest most I'll-be-stabbed-one-day-getting-off-work-late apartment, plus 1k a year in insurance because I'm a man despite a clean driving record for the five years I've had a license, plus 2k a year in gas because I can't afford rent in the town I work in, I'm spending 9k a year pre-maintenance on things pretty much any person that hates poorfags has (a job and a place to stay). Between food, clothing, and utilities, you're no better than being on NEETbux (And this is as a single person) until you get a better job or go to school (which really means start bankrolling the next few years on student loan debt).

That just means we cancel NEETbux, and poverty is solved.

I'd rather drive a shitbox civic for 3k than put up with people on public transport. I enjoy not having to smell to listen to or be jostled by or otherwise be affected by people. I like my personal space and I'd rather own a car to have such things.

Seriously? Do you not realize that someone who would be considered to be a member of the lower economic class can literally walk into their local public assistance office, ask for help with a car, and they will be given up to TWO THOUSAND dollars to buy a shitbox, as well as about a THOUSAND to repair / register said shitbox?

I absolutely know this to be fact. I have sold a car to a person using this program.

Sure, it may not be a Supra, or an FD, or a Lexus sedan of some sort..... But it has four wheels, an engine, and moves.

Okay, so there you go. Problem solved. Now all someone has to do is be a contributing member of society, get a job, and buy gas!

Or, wait, simply wait for the government to send a check, which pays for their gas.

Does this all correct the inequality? No. But does it provide a serviceable vehicle that one can use to transport themselves and their family.

The problem is that the accessibility of cars relies on automotive dependency. If not many people need cars, then most won't buy them. Only people who need to ship lots of people, or buy lots of stuff will ever buy them. Or people who need to travel long distances fairly often.

This will inherently reduce the amount of people buying cars, which will increase the value of them as automotive companies try to shore up the profit margin on every sale. This will also negatively impact the used car market.

The used car market is important for enthusiasts, as having a wealth of cheaply available cars for modfication is the best method of getting started in automotive enthusiasm. Especially for lower class people. That has always been the case. From greasers to muscle in the 80s, to ricers in the 90s and 2000s. Even auto subcultures spawned from oppressed minorities rely on old cars.

This is also the case with motorcycles, which have nearly always been cheaper than cars. Save for their almost complete lack of practicality.

And the high amount of roads in our countries depends on automotive use. If the cars aren't there, roads won't be maintained. Many of the small towns as well rely on having the roads go to their towns. This allows for constant, small amounts of traffic to flow to them. Without those highways to support small towns, they'll die off as well. Trains will only ever be built to larger population centers. They're not an economically viable solution to small towns.

Automotive dependence is a good solution going forward. However the trick will be to get people to use economically sensible transportation. Big, gas guzzling crossovers don't make sense. Electric and yes, self driving, cars will be important.

Making cars cost less, in fuel, maintenance, and insurance, will be important going forward. Revisiting the public transportation in large cities and urban hubs will also be important.

All this is to say that the 90s and early 2000s had sensible cars down pretty nicely. Econoboxes like Neons and Civics allowed for people who didn't care about cars to just get a reliable four-banger with a DOHC engine. Good fuel economy, reliability, front wheel drive on most vehicles.

But some manufacturers snuck in rear wheel drive, potentially high revving engines, and easily modifiable cars for those who wanted it. And since the cars came cheap, that made enthusiasm very accessible. The economy was also more friendly to borrowing before the housing bubble collapsed. This is a factor that still effects us. I had to get a credit card so I could pay my bills on it, and build credit. As opposed to getting $5k out of the gate to put down on a cheap car.

Strictly speaking you're wrong. Poor people don't usually make bad financial decisions. Most of the poor start their life poor. I was born poor, and I still am. While I'm working toward an apprenticeship in carpentry, which will bring me slightly below middle class; it won't elevate me out of poverty. And if I get into a marriage with someone who keeps their career, we'll move into the middle class together. And our children will finally begin with a decent nest.

So for my family name to not be "poor", took three generations. It takes time to build wealth. Often times starting with wealth is a key factor in generating wealth in and of itself. Look at the three generations of the Asian family. Hard working Grandparents who never lived a good life, to give their children something good. Parents who grew up to go to college/university. Under immense pressure from the Grandparents. Also working hard, but enjoying life a little more. To children who don't have to work as hard, but still feel pressure to succeed like their parents.

Success breeds success, and not starting at the poll position often makes for a large handicap.

>getting other people to kill yourself for you
fucking richfags lmao

That's of course not to say that poor people don't make bad decisions. However sometimes these decisions are spurred by the bad situations they lived in. Part of my childhood was spent living in a motel. Which was actually more expensive than living in an apartment. But our house was broken into, and my mother's identity stolen. And for the five months for the government to do it's job, we got kicked out of our house. So we had to live in a motel, pay more for rent than we normally did, and we also couldn't cook with anything more powerful than a microwave or hot plate.

This meant that we ate a lot of sandwiches, microwaveable TV dinners, delivery pizza from the cheapest 241 in town, canned soup, ramen noodles.
The list goes on. Not exactly healthy food for growing teenage boys.

And we also had a minifridge, so our fridge never carried snacks. It never had anything beyond condinments and a few pieces of fruit or vegetables for school lunches.

This also meant that my mother had to do groceries almost every day. Which used more gas, and maintenance cost more money. This also meant that groceries became even more expensive. As at the time, unlimited ATM transaction bank accounts were not available. Which meant that my mother either had to go to the bank for more cash (and use more gas), or eat a service charge while doing groceries.

Now imagine doing all of that by bus, for two kids and yourself. I'm just thankful she had a car in the first place.

Being poor is expensive. Being poor is quite difficult. Getting out of poverty is even harder.

we don't have that kind of techology because it would basically serve as a dindu shuttle and nobody else would want to use it.

Yep.
The systems works.

Unfortunately wealth distribution is a no-no thanks to cunts like Marx taking things to the extreme and the Ruskies losing the Cold war.
So you've gotta put up with this opposite system which is proving to be equally damaging for a long time yet as the people with the power and the money have a vested interest in keeping people conditioned into accepting and supporting it.
What's needed is something more pragmatic, humane and mindful of the challenges we're deferring into the future.
That's not going to happen as the concept of solidarity among normal working people has been chipped away and everyone thinks everything will be okay as long as they just give away enough of their rights.

>Lefties complain about right-wing policies ruining the nation

>Wont support right-wing policies to expand our failing railway industry that the left is killing due to restrictions on our energy production sector

wheh lad. You want good transport across an entire nation? Vote Trump. Don't get me wrong the right has been just as cucked as the left in the past few decades, but as a whole this is a dem started issue. Allow our natural gas and coal workers to do their jobs and build more trains without worrying about global warming and you will get what you want.

>Cars are a source of economic inequality.
>We built cities so that the convenient, accessible transport requires a several thousand dollar machine, plus about 6K a year for maintenance, fuel and registration. What are people who can't afford it supposed to do?
>At the supermarket my brother used to work at, employees would follow each other through the boom gates so they wouldn't fucking STARVE paying parking fees.
>Our current transport paradigm disadvantages the lower class and sustains poverty. Meanwhile governments continue to widen highways instead of investing in equitable transport, because the right wing loves those political "donations" from the automotive and petroleum industry.

bollocks

>build more trains without worrying about global warming and you will get what you want.
how did you know i wanted los angeles 30 feet under water?

America constitutes almost an entire continent and holds the population worthy of one.
My fucking metroplex is larger than some European countries, in size and population.

>expand hydro, nuclear, renewables
>reduce coal and nat gas
>install maglevs, maglevs everywhere
>suddenly huge amounts of cargo and people are zipping across the country at 200kph
>reduce dependency on oil with further incentives to electric cars
>fusion power
wew lad. A multi faceted problem can be addressed with a multi faceted plan.
And for crashing the oil, gas and coal industries, we can reallocate those people and the economic effort used to maintain those industries. People can be retrained. At this point, we're trimming the fat of unneeded industries.
Between this and automation, things will be okay. Just implement a basic wage, unless you want hordes of poor killing the rich.

>implying California wouldn't float off by then

Fair enough. But Nuclear power is ten times more taboo to the left than coal.

I think you would have an easier time convincing a liberal to warm the planet than to (in their fearful minds) irradiate it.

It's really difficult to speak for the left, as the left has never been a unified front. That said, there are many people in the left who recognize the value, safety, and the benefits of nuclear power. And if we could just get over fission and use fusion, no one would have any need for anything else, as far as energy goes.
Or if we could finally get some Thorium reactors online, that would be peachy-keen.

It's also worth it to note that a higher amount of the pro science community exists on the left. Climate denial, anti-vaxxing, and anti-GMO communities tend to fall somewhere in the center to far right.

>anti-vaxxing, and anti-GMO communities tend to fall somewhere in the center to far right
I dunno user. Source? I know that Greenpeace is one of the biggest anti-GMO agitators.