4 ms·
This isn’t actually true. Cars are expensive, so poor people usually rely more on public transit like busses, which get stuck in traffic behind cars. Driving m
by dublinben 3y ago
This isn’t actually true.
Cars are expensive, so poor people usually rely more on public transit like busses, which get stuck in traffic behind cars. Driving more is positively correlated with higher income.
Lower income people disproportionately suffer the consequences of the current car-centric system like air pollution, noise pollution, traffic violence, etc.
- digging 3y ago> Cars are expensive, so poor people usually rely more on public transit like busses This feels like a totally theoretical idea, or one from a place very different from the US. I think a lot of posters here are from the US where having a car is almost mandatory and you'll only take the bus if you're literally too poor for a car. Most low income people in most US cities can afford cars, it's just a massive burden, but without a car they would have so much less time because transit is bad.
- underlipton 3y agoA tax would promote a positive long-term shift for PoC, statistically. The ones who survive their means of keeping in house, food, and job becoming significantly more expensive in the short-term, of course. Or, we could induce that positive long-term shift without (figuratively) throwing the least-able to weather the change under the bus. Somehow, I think it's possible to make cars more expensive for the rich people who shaped the current system while keeping automobiles a viable option for the less-well-off who need them in this status quo that they didn't ask for.