5 ms·

That being unacceptable is based on conditions where owning a car is subsidized by free parking. Remove those subsidies and there would now be a market for more

by curun1r 10y ago

That being unacceptable is based on conditions where owning a car is subsidized by free parking. Remove those subsidies and there would now be a market for more flexible childcare. Your argument amounts to a tautology. A car is necessary under current driving conditions is not the same thing as a car being necessary under any driving conditions. There are many places around the world where most people don't own cars. They still manage to figure out how to raise children, often while being substantially poorer than we are in the states. I'm confident that if we create the right environment that discourages car ownership, we'll figure it out here too.

kbenson 10y ago
> Your argument amounts to a tautology. Only when you make up some argument for me... > A car is necessary under current driving conditions is not the same thing as a car being necessary under any driving conditions. That wasn't my argument at all. I was simple stating that when making an argument using personal experience as the basis for what is and isn't "necessary" is likely to leave out a lot of people with valid concerns. My example wasn't to push an agenda for or against cards, but to show how some people may come to an entirely different conclusion about what is and isn't necessary, currently.
lovemenot 10y ago
Quite so. My wife and I have raised three children into their teens without ever having owned a car. This was not problematic, precisely because we live in Tokyo, a city mentioned in the article as having enlightened policies on parking and public transport.
- candiodari 10y ago
  So everyone can do this ? What is your average expenses per month, you know, basic stuff. Apartment (rent/mortgage), transport, non-restaurant food, etc. And how does that compare to average income around you ? This is the argument everyone in SF makes. "Just move into the city. Use an (electrical) bike. Yes there's the homeless but you learn to steer around them quickly". And then you look at the rent, and the average income. Needless to say, this is not a reasonable suggestion.
  - curun1r 10y ago
    Citing a dysfunctional housing market like San Francisco is instructive, but only because it provides contrast to the situation the poster you're replying to was talking about. Tokyo may be expensive, but it also manages to house more than 15 times the residents of San Francisco. Not all of the almost 14m people living in Tokyo are rich. And for those that don't like living in that kind of population density, it's surprisingly easy to live in other cities. The public transportation system there is amazing...far better than even Europe can offer. The Tokyo Metro goes everywhere in the city and the transfers between the Metro and the high-speed rail lines are timed, so you don't waste time waiting. When we took the bullet train, I saw people commuting in excess of 100 mi to/from work. That may sound like a lot to an American, but it was around an hour of commute time with their infrastructure. And since they don't drive during their commutes, they can spend the time on the train doing something entertaining/productive. It's really eye opening what can happen when you don't prioritize cars in a city. If San Francisco were similarly prioritized and we invested in transportation infrastructure the way the Japanese do, you wouldn't have to live there to work there. You could live in the Stockton area, where the median home price is under $300k, and you'd only have to dodge the homeless people on your way between the metro and your work. And you and your spouse could share a car instead of each needing one since you'd only need it for local trips around your home city rather than commuting.

by curun1r 10y ago

kbenson 10y ago

> Your argument amounts to a tautology. Only when you make up some argument for me... > A car is necessary under current driving conditions is not the same thing as a car being necessary under any driving conditions. That wasn't my argument at all. I was simple stating that when making an argument using personal experience as the basis for what is and isn't "necessary" is likely to leave out a lot of people with valid concerns. My example wasn't to push an agenda for or against cards, but to show how some people may come to an entirely different conclusion about what is and isn't necessary, currently.

lovemenot 10y ago

Quite so. My wife and I have raised three children into their teens without ever having owned a car. This was not problematic, precisely because we live in Tokyo, a city mentioned in the article as having enlightened policies on parking and public transport.

candiodari 10y ago
So everyone can do this ? What is your average expenses per month, you know, basic stuff. Apartment (rent/mortgage), transport, non-restaurant food, etc. And how does that compare to average income around you ? This is the argument everyone in SF makes. "Just move into the city. Use an (electrical) bike. Yes there's the homeless but you learn to steer around them quickly". And then you look at the rent, and the average income. Needless to say, this is not a reasonable suggestion.
- curun1r 10y ago
  Citing a dysfunctional housing market like San Francisco is instructive, but only because it provides contrast to the situation the poster you're replying to was talking about. Tokyo may be expensive, but it also manages to house more than 15 times the residents of San Francisco. Not all of the almost 14m people living in Tokyo are rich. And for those that don't like living in that kind of population density, it's surprisingly easy to live in other cities. The public transportation system there is amazing...far better than even Europe can offer. The Tokyo Metro goes everywhere in the city and the transfers between the Metro and the high-speed rail lines are timed, so you don't waste time waiting. When we took the bullet train, I saw people commuting in excess of 100 mi to/from work. That may sound like a lot to an American, but it was around an hour of commute time with their infrastructure. And since they don't drive during their commutes, they can spend the time on the train doing something entertaining/productive. It's really eye opening what can happen when you don't prioritize cars in a city. If San Francisco were similarly prioritized and we invested in transportation infrastructure the way the Japanese do, you wouldn't have to live there to work there. You could live in the Stockton area, where the median home price is under $300k, and you'd only have to dodge the homeless people on your way between the metro and your work. And you and your spouse could share a car instead of each needing one since you'd only need it for local trips around your home city rather than commuting.