6 ms·

It seems like Jevons Paradox is just another example of induced demand, the demand is just induced due to increased efficiency. Roads and bandwidth can be stru

It seems like Jevons Paradox is just another example of induced demand, the demand is just induced due to increased efficiency. Roads and bandwidth can be structured as a Jevons Paradox as well, no? The roads were made more efficient by being able to transport more cars. The Internet connection was made more efficient by allowing more bandwidth.

imtringued 5y ago
"Induced demand" usually happens when the product you are supplying is free, like roads. What you are talking is more like latent demand.
slg 5y ago
I think the difference is a real vs nominal increase in supply. Is the quantity of supply higher or is the supply just being used more efficiently? It is the difference between roads being added and the speed limit being increased. Lots of topics in economics are talked about as if they occur in isolation, but that rarely happens in practice. The bandwidth example includes both because we were increasing efficiency of existing data lines as well as adding more lines, but I think the latter was much more impactful than the former.
kiba 5y ago
Cars are just very space inefficient compared to motorcycle, bicycles, or even pedestrians, though. Saturation comes much faster for cars, so it's more efficient to use rail and other form of transport.
- xyzzyz 5y ago
  They are very time efficient, though, and people tend to care about time efficiency too, not just about space efficiency.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    But the space inefficiency forces time inefficiency rather quickly ( because cars take so much space, it's relatively easy for them to be enough to create traffic and/or parking congestion). Not to mention the fact that all of the space dedicated to fit the space inefficient cars is wasted, and wastes time for humans ( e.g. when having to cross a huge stroad or parking lot).
  - MereInterest 5y ago
    Time efficiency, maybe, but time utilization definitely not. Based on current times from Google Maps, driving from New York City to Boston is 3h45m. Taking a Greyhound bus is 4h20m, but you can read a book, play video games, etc during that time. One of them uses the majority of your attention for the full duration, while the other uses barely any of your attention, leaving you free to do something else. And that's not even counting trains, which would make the same trip in 3h30m.
    - xyzzyz 5y ago
      Okay, and how do you get from the Greyhound station to where you actually want to be? With a car, you can get directly from your home to where you want to be, which makes enormous difference in practice, especially on shorter, intra-city routes.
      - kiba 5y ago
        Cars only work if someone build infrastructure for them and land use pattern is built for them. Think about gas station, garage, etc. We could use bikes for last mile transport, or make streetcar suburbs an automatic assumption.
        xyzzyz 5y ago
        > Cars only work if someone build infrastructure for them and land use pattern is built for them. That's a fully general argument against everything. Buses and streetcars also work only if someone builds infrastructure and land use pattern is built for them.
        kiba 5y ago
        Of course. So, the idea that car is time efficient doesn't seem to really hold water even when our urban landscape is designed for it, especially in my lived experience. Is it really going to be all that useful for me if I only walk 5 minutes as opposed to driving 5 minutes to a local convenience store? Especially given the cost on society? If you can get to a store by a car, you could get to a store by a motor bike. I have a really hard time justifying myself that I need a one or two ton electric vehicle that can seat five people just to get a drink at that corner shop only accessible by driving.
  - adrianN 5y ago
    In congested areas cars are not particularly time efficient. For most journeys up to ten kilometers or so I'm almost as fast on my bike than I would be in a car, sometimes I'm even a bit faster. And that's despite traffic lights not really being optimized for bike traffic.

imtringued 5y ago

"Induced demand" usually happens when the product you are supplying is free, like roads. What you are talking is more like latent demand.

slg 5y ago

I think the difference is a real vs nominal increase in supply. Is the quantity of supply higher or is the supply just being used more efficiently? It is the difference between roads being added and the speed limit being increased. Lots of topics in economics are talked about as if they occur in isolation, but that rarely happens in practice. The bandwidth example includes both because we were increasing efficiency of existing data lines as well as adding more lines, but I think the latter was much more impactful than the former.

kiba 5y ago

Cars are just very space inefficient compared to motorcycle, bicycles, or even pedestrians, though. Saturation comes much faster for cars, so it's more efficient to use rail and other form of transport.

xyzzyz 5y ago
They are very time efficient, though, and people tend to care about time efficiency too, not just about space efficiency.
- sofixa 5y ago
  But the space inefficiency forces time inefficiency rather quickly ( because cars take so much space, it's relatively easy for them to be enough to create traffic and/or parking congestion). Not to mention the fact that all of the space dedicated to fit the space inefficient cars is wasted, and wastes time for humans ( e.g. when having to cross a huge stroad or parking lot).
- MereInterest 5y ago
  Time efficiency, maybe, but time utilization definitely not. Based on current times from Google Maps, driving from New York City to Boston is 3h45m. Taking a Greyhound bus is 4h20m, but you can read a book, play video games, etc during that time. One of them uses the majority of your attention for the full duration, while the other uses barely any of your attention, leaving you free to do something else. And that's not even counting trains, which would make the same trip in 3h30m.
  - xyzzyz 5y ago
    Okay, and how do you get from the Greyhound station to where you actually want to be? With a car, you can get directly from your home to where you want to be, which makes enormous difference in practice, especially on shorter, intra-city routes.
    - kiba 5y ago
      Cars only work if someone build infrastructure for them and land use pattern is built for them. Think about gas station, garage, etc. We could use bikes for last mile transport, or make streetcar suburbs an automatic assumption.
      - xyzzyz 5y ago
        > Cars only work if someone build infrastructure for them and land use pattern is built for them. That's a fully general argument against everything. Buses and streetcars also work only if someone builds infrastructure and land use pattern is built for them.
        kiba 5y ago
        Of course. So, the idea that car is time efficient doesn't seem to really hold water even when our urban landscape is designed for it, especially in my lived experience. Is it really going to be all that useful for me if I only walk 5 minutes as opposed to driving 5 minutes to a local convenience store? Especially given the cost on society? If you can get to a store by a car, you could get to a store by a motor bike. I have a really hard time justifying myself that I need a one or two ton electric vehicle that can seat five people just to get a drink at that corner shop only accessible by driving.
- adrianN 5y ago
  In congested areas cars are not particularly time efficient. For most journeys up to ten kilometers or so I'm almost as fast on my bike than I would be in a car, sometimes I'm even a bit faster. And that's despite traffic lights not really being optimized for bike traffic.