4 ms·

I mean this is Europe, and there's much less "this is unfair" versus "we are in this together".

joeberon 5y ago
Maybe compared to America, but really, no, there's still a LOT of individualistic thinking here
rory 5y ago
Even on public transport, longer commutes are relatively environmentally unfriendly when compared to shorter commutes (in the medium-to-long run). So regardless of individualism, it would generally be a public benefit to encourage shorter commutes.
- southerntofu 5y ago
  Yes, but it's not exactly that you have a lot of choice for where you work, for example.
  - rory 5y ago
    I suppose it depends on the job and the market, but many people do have a lot of choice where they work (and where they live).
    - southerntofu 5y ago
      I think we disagree on the "many". I would say "some" instead. Most people i know don't have a choice: they're employed in a shop somewhere or work from specific offices. Of course, the HN crowd may be more exposed to work-from-home, but that's still alien to a great part of the population, especially those who work the most precarious jobs.
      - rory 5y ago
        I'm not sure how it is in Austria, but here in the US, people on the more "precarious" end of the spectrum (non-management retail and hospitality workers) have a quit rate of (very roughly) ~50% per year. So generally they do seem to be aware that they can choose a different place to work. Do you live somewhere very rural?
        southerntofu 5y ago
        Yes i reside in a less populous area (south France) where you can be happy to find a job at all, if that's what you're looking for in life. But from my understanding of bigger agglomerations: there's a high turnover rate in precarious jobs, but just because you can afford to find another precarious job elsewhere doesn't mean you get the privilege to choose where precisely. I hear in suburbs of capitals like Berlin or Paris it's not uncommon for people to travel 2-4h daily to work and back. Chances are if you switch jobs, you might have the same travel times, but to a different location.
        rory 5y ago
        Hm yes, my perspective is probably quite non-representative. Thank you for the insight!
        southerntofu 5y ago
        Thank you for asking, that was a very pertinent question!
rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
People living far from city centers usually live in bigger house/flats and less dense districts. That's usually what pull people to move to the suburbs. Some do this because of the cost of renting/buy a big place in inner city but it's the same argument. The problem is, living in a large place and sparser environment has a HUGE social cost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_sprawl#Effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_sprawl#Effects which is a major contributor to the ongoing biodiversity collapse (which is at least as big of a threat as climate change). "We are in this together" but not just to get people to drop private cars. We must commute much less (however clean your mode of transport) so how is it compatible with cheap transport in the long term? Or we put hard limit on urban sprawl but that will increase the cost of living in suburban/rural places even further than having people pay for their commute distance.

Maybe compared to America, but really, no, there's still a LOT of individualistic thinking here

rory 5y ago

Even on public transport, longer commutes are relatively environmentally unfriendly when compared to shorter commutes (in the medium-to-long run). So regardless of individualism, it would generally be a public benefit to encourage shorter commutes.

southerntofu 5y ago
Yes, but it's not exactly that you have a lot of choice for where you work, for example.
- rory 5y ago
  I suppose it depends on the job and the market, but many people do have a lot of choice where they work (and where they live).
  - southerntofu 5y ago
    I think we disagree on the "many". I would say "some" instead. Most people i know don't have a choice: they're employed in a shop somewhere or work from specific offices. Of course, the HN crowd may be more exposed to work-from-home, but that's still alien to a great part of the population, especially those who work the most precarious jobs.
    - rory 5y ago
      I'm not sure how it is in Austria, but here in the US, people on the more "precarious" end of the spectrum (non-management retail and hospitality workers) have a quit rate of (very roughly) ~50% per year. So generally they do seem to be aware that they can choose a different place to work. Do you live somewhere very rural?
      - southerntofu 5y ago
        Yes i reside in a less populous area (south France) where you can be happy to find a job at all, if that's what you're looking for in life. But from my understanding of bigger agglomerations: there's a high turnover rate in precarious jobs, but just because you can afford to find another precarious job elsewhere doesn't mean you get the privilege to choose where precisely. I hear in suburbs of capitals like Berlin or Paris it's not uncommon for people to travel 2-4h daily to work and back. Chances are if you switch jobs, you might have the same travel times, but to a different location.
        rory 5y ago
        Hm yes, my perspective is probably quite non-representative. Thank you for the insight!
        southerntofu 5y ago
        Thank you for asking, that was a very pertinent question!

rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago

People living far from city centers usually live in bigger house/flats and less dense districts. That's usually what pull people to move to the suburbs. Some do this because of the cost of renting/buy a big place in inner city but it's the same argument. The problem is, living in a large place and sparser environment has a HUGE social cost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_sprawl#Effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_sprawl#Effects which is a major contributor to the ongoing biodiversity collapse (which is at least as big of a threat as climate change). "We are in this together" but not just to get people to drop private cars. We must commute much less (however clean your mode of transport) so how is it compatible with cheap transport in the long term? Or we put hard limit on urban sprawl but that will increase the cost of living in suburban/rural places even further than having people pay for their commute distance.