38 ms·
If taxis and car shares gave people what they wanted, then people would sell their cars and use these alternatives. But they evidently don't, because people pr
by cbeach 3y ago
If taxis and car shares gave people what they wanted, then people would sell their cars and use these alternatives.
But they evidently don't, because people prefer to own cars, and that's why they own cars.
Don't condescend people by pretending you know what's best for them.
- epistasis 3y agoIf car centric suburban development gave people what they want, it would be cheaper than the very few places in the US thay allow one to survive by taxi and car share.
- sokoloff 3y agoIt's not necessary for something for something to be cheaper in order for it to be what people want. People regularly pay more for things they prefer. Neither is it being cheaper proof one way or the other. Housing expenses are a complex system including a balance/imbalance of supply and demand. If suburbs are cheaper like-for-like, that's an indication (but not proof) that there's more supply in suburbs than demand relative to a style of living that's more expensive. Housing preferences are very much multi-dimensional, of which car vs non-car mobility is but one factor. Quality of schools, availability of jobs, need/desire for large amounts of interior or private exterior space, quiet, ease of resale, and hundreds of other factors conspire to set an individual household's willingness/preference to live in a place.