5 ms·

Public transportation is (almost always) an inferior good. If one country is consuming more of an inferior good than another country, it means that they are poo

Public transportation is (almost always) an inferior good. If one country is consuming more of an inferior good than another country, it means that they are poorer than that other country.

zeotroph 5y ago
"A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It's where the rich use public transportation." -Gustavo Petro See London or Paris or even New York City. Just getting everyone a car only creates cities which are contain more parking lots than buildings and green spaces.
- rufus_foreman 5y ago
  The richer you are in New York City, the less you spend on public transportation. That's an inferior good.
  - Bilal_io 5y ago
    Look at the "Park & Ride" concept in the Seattle area (I am sure it exists in other cities). I've seen a lot of people that are very comfortable financially take the bus to work. Public transportation only becomes inferior when its infrastructure is horrible, and it is humiliating to take a bus because of the wait time, delays or how packed they get.
    - rufus_foreman 5y ago
      If someone in Seattle goes from 200,000 a year in income to 2,000,000 a year in income, do they spend more or less money on Park & Ride?
    - babyshake 5y ago
      In San Francisco and New York at least, one important reason public transportation is inferior is you are regularly confronted with mental illness, disgusting sights and smells, and sometimes violence.
  - babyshake 5y ago
    I've always wondered why there haven't been more efforts to offer certain benefits (more comfort and privacy) to those who can pay more to ride public transportation. This would provide more funding for these systems and is not too different from what we already see on planes and trains.
  - rbanffy 5y ago
    And that’s precisely why public transport is an inferior good in NYC.
syops 5y ago
It depends on how one measures poorer. Economists will look at a society with more cars per person as a good sign. I view it as a bad one if the country is already wealthy. The profligacy of Americans is obscene and makes us poorer in spirit, morality, and we pay for it with unhealthy lives. The accompanying lack of walking by Americans alone leads to a less healthy lifestyle. We also lose out on the mental benefits that walking provides. We gain a higher amount of pollution due to emissions from cars and the increased amount of resource extraction that comes with it.
jltsiren 5y ago
Widely used public transportation is usually a sign of an efficient and well-developed economy. When the economy is poorly developed, people have to do many things on their own, because comparable services are not available on the market for a reasonable price. A more developed economy enables a higher level of specialization. When people can buy the services they need from someone else, they can spend their time and money on higher-value activities. The right comparison is not public transportation vs. private car, but driving your own vehicle vs. buying transportation as a service. The latter can include anything from city buses to chartered jets.
- rufus_foreman 5y ago
  When people get rich they spend more money on private cars and less money on public transportation. America got rich, people bought cars. That's the way it went down.
  - andrewzah 5y ago
    Also, the US explicitly designed new development around the idea of people owning cars. Public transportation is kind of a moot point when you just have tracts of housing completely separate from commercial areas. All you have to do is visit Seoul or Tokyo to see how valuable and useful public transportation is, when it's done correctly and city planning takes it into account. Even if one is rich, actually driving and parking is a complete hassle most of the time in cities. It's so much more convenient to take a bus or train.
    - rufus_foreman 5y ago
      When you go from thousandaire to millionaire to billionare, your spending on busses or trains goes down. That's an inferior good.
      - andrewzah 5y ago
        I don't really understand why you're fixated on this one particular viewpoint. That statement does not look at -context-. Cities are not designed around the rich or the ultra-rich. Transportation systems are not designed around the rich or the ultra-rich. If all of us had infinite money we would just use private jets or something, but that doesn't mean that jets are strictly superior to cars... this is an apples to oranges comparison. As someone who's lived in Chicago, Seoul, and South Carolina, I can say that our public transportation systems are wholly inferior to Korea and Japan's public transportation systems. It's not strictly a matter of money or not, it's a multifaceted cultural topic. The whole idea of ranking transportation systems by what rich people do or don't do makes absolutely zero sense.
southerntofu 5y ago
You may be interested to read the analysis of Ivan Illich (and others) on car-oriented infrastructure. Turns out cars, both for individuals and for society, are very arguably an "inferior good".

Public transportation is (almost always) an inferior good. If one country is consuming more of an inferior good than another country, it means that they are poorer than that other country.

zeotroph 5y ago

"A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It's where the rich use public transportation." -Gustavo Petro See London or Paris or even New York City. Just getting everyone a car only creates cities which are contain more parking lots than buildings and green spaces.

rufus_foreman 5y ago
The richer you are in New York City, the less you spend on public transportation. That's an inferior good.
- Bilal_io 5y ago
  Look at the "Park & Ride" concept in the Seattle area (I am sure it exists in other cities). I've seen a lot of people that are very comfortable financially take the bus to work. Public transportation only becomes inferior when its infrastructure is horrible, and it is humiliating to take a bus because of the wait time, delays or how packed they get.
  - rufus_foreman 5y ago
    If someone in Seattle goes from 200,000 a year in income to 2,000,000 a year in income, do they spend more or less money on Park & Ride?
  - babyshake 5y ago
    In San Francisco and New York at least, one important reason public transportation is inferior is you are regularly confronted with mental illness, disgusting sights and smells, and sometimes violence.
- babyshake 5y ago
  I've always wondered why there haven't been more efforts to offer certain benefits (more comfort and privacy) to those who can pay more to ride public transportation. This would provide more funding for these systems and is not too different from what we already see on planes and trains.
- rbanffy 5y ago
  And that’s precisely why public transport is an inferior good in NYC.

syops 5y ago

It depends on how one measures poorer. Economists will look at a society with more cars per person as a good sign. I view it as a bad one if the country is already wealthy. The profligacy of Americans is obscene and makes us poorer in spirit, morality, and we pay for it with unhealthy lives. The accompanying lack of walking by Americans alone leads to a less healthy lifestyle. We also lose out on the mental benefits that walking provides. We gain a higher amount of pollution due to emissions from cars and the increased amount of resource extraction that comes with it.

jltsiren 5y ago

Widely used public transportation is usually a sign of an efficient and well-developed economy. When the economy is poorly developed, people have to do many things on their own, because comparable services are not available on the market for a reasonable price. A more developed economy enables a higher level of specialization. When people can buy the services they need from someone else, they can spend their time and money on higher-value activities. The right comparison is not public transportation vs. private car, but driving your own vehicle vs. buying transportation as a service. The latter can include anything from city buses to chartered jets.

rufus_foreman 5y ago
When people get rich they spend more money on private cars and less money on public transportation. America got rich, people bought cars. That's the way it went down.
- andrewzah 5y ago
  Also, the US explicitly designed new development around the idea of people owning cars. Public transportation is kind of a moot point when you just have tracts of housing completely separate from commercial areas. All you have to do is visit Seoul or Tokyo to see how valuable and useful public transportation is, when it's done correctly and city planning takes it into account. Even if one is rich, actually driving and parking is a complete hassle most of the time in cities. It's so much more convenient to take a bus or train.
  - rufus_foreman 5y ago
    When you go from thousandaire to millionaire to billionare, your spending on busses or trains goes down. That's an inferior good.
    - andrewzah 5y ago
      I don't really understand why you're fixated on this one particular viewpoint. That statement does not look at -context-. Cities are not designed around the rich or the ultra-rich. Transportation systems are not designed around the rich or the ultra-rich. If all of us had infinite money we would just use private jets or something, but that doesn't mean that jets are strictly superior to cars... this is an apples to oranges comparison. As someone who's lived in Chicago, Seoul, and South Carolina, I can say that our public transportation systems are wholly inferior to Korea and Japan's public transportation systems. It's not strictly a matter of money or not, it's a multifaceted cultural topic. The whole idea of ranking transportation systems by what rich people do or don't do makes absolutely zero sense.

southerntofu 5y ago

You may be interested to read the analysis of Ivan Illich (and others) on car-oriented infrastructure. Turns out cars, both for individuals and for society, are very arguably an "inferior good".