Living Car Free - Loss of drivers has hurt the us economy.

Has anyone thought about how many jobs would be lost if people gave up purchasing new cars?

Has anyone thought about how many jobs would be lost if people gave up purchasing new cars?
You're assuming those workers wouldn't be picked up by other industries.
In the 1960s or 1970s Algoma Steel employed 12,000 people, now they employ 3600. All through the mining, manufacturing and other heavy industry sector job numbers have been massively reduced by automation, but those jobs get replaced by jobs in the financial sector, the high-tech sector, the entertainment industry, service industries, etc. etc. etc. Plus, there's actually likely to be a severe labour shortage in North America in the next few years due to mass retirement of baby boomers.

Thought about it? I dream about it every day.

Your argument is based soley on faith that people who lose their jobs will find another one, am I correct? But the automotive industry is excessively massive employing hundreds of thousands of workers. The U.S. has been set up where goods and services are not readily accessible by bike and have been designed under the assumption that people can get their using a car. If the car manufacturers go out of buisness that would be due to a lack of interest in the autombile. And if this happens many buisnesses that rely on their customers getting to their establishment by car will lose out on many customers. In return their buisnesses will go under. So if the closure of automobile factories lead to the closure of buisnesses that rely on people having automobiles, where will all the people laid of from car plant work?

Did anyone worry about how many buggy whip manufacturers went under in the early 1900s ?

Why would it be a bad thing if people lose jobs due to an increase in bicyclists but a good thing if people lose jobs because automobiles are being produced overseas?

If you were one of the people losing their jobs i'm sure you would be the first one to care. I'm also sure that their were many people who cared about the loss of the buggy. My point isn't the workers that directly would be hurt from the loss of their jobs in the automotive industry, but the economy that would be affected by the loss of people using the car. Are country has been built up to what we see know adays thanks to the car and if it were to become extinct so would are economy. I don't think the buggy traveled 20 miles to get organic groceries.

If the car has suddenly become obsolete, I'm pretty sure the free market will correct that, perhaps employing all these people in making trains, buses, and being employed by the mass transit industry. The surplus will be picked up by whatever industry replaced the car as a primary means of transporation be it bicycles, bicycle shops, instant teleportation manufacturers, teleportation rentals, personal walker assistants, personal walker coaches, rocket-powered sneaker manufacturers, stable boys, horse breeders, ancient throne carriers, human buggy operators, etc, etc. Then there's always Walmart and McDonald's.

Your argument is based soley on faith that people who lose their jobs will find another one, am I correct?


If you were one of the people losing their jobs i'm sure you would be the first one to care.


Of course I wouldn't want to lose my job. But your argument is based solely on the assumption that economies and people can't adapt to changing circumstances and find ways to profit from them. There will be whole sectors devoted to re-engineering society to accomodate post-automotive, post-petrochemical culture. Infill housing, transit construction, delivery services, windmill erection, home insulation, compost collection, rickshaw building, even street cobbling (for the delivery horses). Of course I'm being a bit facetious, but my main point stands. We no longer have anywhere near the number of workers employed in grain thrashing or handloom operation that we had 1-2 centuries ago, and we adapted and put those people to work doing something else, and we'll do it again.

Oh, and look for buggy whip manufacturers to make a comeback!

But your argument is based solely on the assumption that economies and people can't adapt to changing circumstances and find ways to profit from them.

I'm not afraid that over time people could eventually adapt to the changing situation, but the key word there is eventually. What would happen to the economy and people that would be affected by the abrupt seizure to the production and owning of automobiles assuming it would take a certain amount of time for the world to adapt to this change. How do we convince people that automobiles are no longer necessary? What new jobs would we have to take the place of the transportation needs of the world? Its nice and dandy to say that people will correct their mistakes and adapt to a changing environment, didnt Darwin say that, but this would all have to be a slow process and I'm not sure how we would obtain this goal without hurting the world in the process.

Oh, and look for buggy whip manufacturers to make a comeback!

I wouldn't expect horses to make a big come-back. Horses require specialized skills, environments, and constant attention. We can get the better efficiencies with greater convenience simply by reducing the "horsepower" of our vehicles. A national top speed limit of 45MPH for instance (it was 35 during WWII) would drastically reduce the amount of oil consumed in this country, allow much smaller engines, and still be more than twice the maximum speed a horse and reader can achieve. As a side benefit, it would virtually eliminate the 40,000 annual automotive deaths.

The purpose of a job is to have goods.

The purpose of goods is NOT to provide jobs.

So what if no one wants to buy cars? If the largest employer in the US were "kick you in the balls" stands, would you feel obligated to buy their service?

Wind energy is fairly labor intensive, and this industry is flourishing. As of the end of 2005, the total installed wind power capacity stands at 59,322 MW worldwide, an increase of 25% compared to 2004. Vestas, the largest turbine manufacturer, has outstanding orders for over 3000 MW.

Has anyone thought about how many jobs would be lost if people gave up purchasing new cars?

No, but I've wondered how people will purchase new cars if they've lost their jobs.

What would happen to the economy and people that would be affected by the abrupt seizure to the production and owning of automobiles assuming it would take a certain amount of time for the world to adapt to this change.

You seemed to have forgotten people are already starting to adapt , I think it will be slow change but before you know it'll be normal , it won't be sudden if you look at the car manufactures there building more economical cars so just keep watching ..

It's been demonstrated over and over that the job market adapts. Think of all the jobs displaced by computers being able to do so many things. They've affected every single category of jobs. The unemployment rate hasn't changed that much since computers came about.

So what if no one wants to buy cars? If the largest employer in the US were "kick you in the balls" stands, would you feel obligated to buy their service?

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

The purpose of a job is to have goods.

The purpose of goods is NOT to provide jobs.

So what if no one wants to buy cars? If the largest employer in the US were "kick you in the balls" stands, would you feel obligated to buy their service?

:D

Further, the purpose of jobs is to not to provide livelihoods, it is to provide a production input for people who need workers. They are buyng your labor. Ideally, a society should use less labor per dollar gdp per capta over time, and not more. Otherwise we would be working our asses off! If lowered labor per gdp/capita occurs, then we simply need to to institute things like 35-hour work weeks and mandatory 6 week vacations in order to make sure that there are enough jobs to go around.

Has anyone thought about how many jobs would be lost if people gave up purchasing new cars?


Am I the only one who has noticed numerous Anti-Car-Free postings on here, particularly regarding economic factors, such as the one above?

Besides, what is the above supposed to be? A rant? A cogent argument (it's definitely not that) ???

Obliterator, what is your point? That because there is a need for the car industry, we must be good citizens and buy cars?

Or is it to defend car owners?

There are whole groups that are deeply concerned with the loss of cars, loss of money for new roads, (less fuel tax for roads maintenance and new), insurance, dealers, advertising is a huge one, (how much of your local paper has car adds?), vocational schools. Even hybrids can be seen as a threat because; they use less gas and therefore generate less tax money for road repair.

I predict that this will have a domino effect—less drivers will drive up the costs associated with driving and that will reduce the number of miles driven.



I have seen web sites where they are touting the value of dealerships to the local economy.

http://www.pittsburghauto.org/PATA/main.cfm?section=links

Here is an economic impact for my area—
http://www.pittsburghauto.org/PATA/impact.pdf

Just think how many doctors would be out of business if the miles traveled by car where cut in half!

Here’s some of the ways that they are fighting back:
Scholarships. Major companies giving money to train students in auto service,
http://www.ayes.org/news

covering their rears-
http://expo.nada.org/nada2006/public/SessionDetails.aspx?SessionID=43

Fighting Government regulation
http://www.nada.org/Template.cfm?Section=Dealers_Election_Action_Committee&Template=/MembersOnly.cfm&NavMenuID=261&ContentID=14958&DirectListComboInd=D

http://www.aiadalists.org/govRelations/issues.aspx

When bikes became the rage in the early 20th century, piano makers where up in arms because people bought fewer pianos.

Anyone seen any good road lobby web sites? I am sure that they are out there.

Has anyone thought about how many jobs would be lost if people gave up purchasing new cars?

I suspect 20% of the entire economy would be functionally unemployed. The automobile industry does not just effect Detroit but hundreds of thousands of workers across other industries like construction, police, carpentry, oil, plastics etc.

There's no going back. We're stuck with this monster forever.

Are country has been built up to what we see know adays thanks to the car and if it were to become extinct so would are economy. I don't think the buggy traveled 20 miles to get organic groceries.

Think how many jobs would be gained if we gave up our cars and started converting most of our farms over to organic foods! Think how many jobs would be gained if we started hiring enough people to produce solar and wind power stations to replace the coal-powered ones we have now!

We could afford it if we spent less on the auto industry!

A couple centuries ago, my ancestors (yours too, maybe) were part of an economy that spent vast sums of money surrounding its cities with stone walls in order to protect them. Then some people found some cheap ways to make those walls almost completely ineffective (Artillery, basically.) Many, many jobs were lost because governments stopped building those walls. I suppose we could have kept building stone walls around our cities to this very day, but I'm glad that our economy has shifted its resources away from walls and towards things that people believed to be more useful. (I suspect that means roads, among other things.)

If you don't want to see an instant collapse of a particular industry, fine. If you don't want to see a gradual decline in a particular industry, you'll have to defend the industry on its merits alone.

I live in Lansing, the city that brought you Oldsmobile and Fisher Body. We have lost thousands of jobs due to automaion in the auto plants. The manufacturing job losses in most industries is much more due to automation than to reduced consumption. In some industries, job loss has been caused by plants moving to regions and countries with lower labor classes.

Has anyone thought about how many jobs would be lost if people gave up purchasing new cars?
Now, Obliterator, please tell me the url for your car forum. I want to go there and harrass people the same way you come here with your stupid pro-auto bull****.

When one considers that the automotive, weapons, and aerospace industries are all we really have left for industrial production in this country, it doesn't bode well for us.

Nevertheless, it is a dying market that must adapt to lower demand.

I live in Lansing, the city that brought you Oldsmobile and Fisher Body. We have lost thousands of jobs due to automaion in the auto plants. The manufacturing job losses in most industries is much more due to automation than to reduced consumption. In some industries, job loss has been caused by plants moving to regions and countries with lower labor classes.

Good one.

Everyone on this forum thinks the loss of automobiles will force other people to find high paying jobs in different fields. This is wishful thinking because Detroit became a slum once the manufacturing left the city and this has been repeated time in again in cities across the nation. I'm certain if Lansing lost its remaining manufacturing base, we will see slums where those autoworkers used to live.

What in the HECK is everybody talking about??????

The demand for cars in the US has gone down? When did this happen? That's like saying nobody goes to the Hamptons anymore, because it's too crowded. Nobody is buying cars any more, because there's too much traffic.

GM is laying off workers because it can't compete with foreign automakers. There are many reasons for this, including labor costs, brand and dealership structure, and lousy marketing. And it's only going to get worse for US auto workers as Chinese car companies ramp up production.

But less demand for cars? Where is the evidence of that?

I think we're suffering from delusions of grandeur, here.

Just think of the even more terrible effect on the economy caused by people who have stopped smoking.

What in the HECK is everybody talking about??????

The demand for cars in the US has gone down? When did this happen? That's like saying nobody goes to the Hamptons anymore, because it's too crowded. Nobody is buying cars any more, because there's too much traffic.

GM is laying off workers because it can't compete with foreign automakers. There are many reasons for this, including labor costs, brand and dealership structure, and lousy marketing. And it's only going to get worse for US auto workers as Chinese car companies ramp up production.

But less demand for cars? Where is the evidence of that?

I think we're suffering from delusions of grandeur, here.
I think that it is more speculation. A “what if...” type of thing. Still, the stats are predicting many more cars on us roads in the next 2 decades. But consider this. Many states have structured fuel taxes to go to road maintenance. What if there are more cars using less gas? There will be less money for roads.

I live in Pittsburgh. In 1975 or so they started closing steel mills, because Japan was producing a better product for less money. This wiped out many communities, where the average income was 50K with a HS education. Those areas are still wasted, but the city adapted to high tech and now we have a cleaner city with a fair amount of high paying high teck jobs. Google is opening an office here. In a free market, if no one buys, the company should go down the tubes. Then other industries will grow. Horse and buggy gave way to the car, the car will give way to? Perhaps telecommuting, bicycles, trains, or how about hitch hiking? Then the only ones driving will be the rich.

I know that the oil dependant businesses are scared. Otherwise they would not be engaged in all of the advertising and lobbing efforts. Another short term issue is that people are less willing to buy something if they could get a more efficient car next year. They'll just wait. And that waiting will hurt. I think that an economist could argue that in part offering tax breaks for SUVs contributed to this dilemma. People made a choice based on a more or less random incentive. Then Ford met the demand, and now they find themselves in a position of not being ready with fuel efficient hybrids.

I feel sorry for those workers in the auto industry. I hope that they take advantage of any college matching funds that their employers offer. It will be impossible to get paid 80K a year bending sheet metal once the industry starts closing and layoffs.

You seemed to have forgotten people are already starting to adapt , I think it will be slow change but before you know it'll be normal , it won't be sudden if you look at the car manufactures there building more economical cars so just keep watching ..

slow change like converting to the metric system? LOL. j/k

The change has started, but most of the people involved and enganged in it are a) relatively well educated, and thus have a wider array of job opportunties b) more open minded c) in a life position to do so more easily than others.

I'd bet dollar to donuts that if a radical shift happened overnight it would be better on average down the road for all, just better hope your on the right side of the curve. The short term will be painful, but perhaps that is better than a long drawn out process prompted by necessity instead of choice.

Has anyone thought about how many jobs would be lost if people gave up purchasing new cars?

Well, since I've never bought a new car in over 50 years of living. I guess I caused all the misery at GM by myself.

Obliterator...

I suggest you read the book, 'Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream.' In terms of job creation, mass transit is much better for the economy than road construction. I don't remember the exact figures, but for every mile of mass transit built about 30 times for jobs are created than for every mile of freeway construction. As the economy shifts from one area to the other, employment eventually shifts accordingly. Yes, it can be a long, difficult adjustment, but that's pretty much what all of life is: one long difficult adjustment.

Good one.

Everyone on this forum thinks the loss of automobiles will force other people to find high paying jobs in different fields. This is wishful thinking because Detroit became a slum once the manufacturing left the city and this has been repeated time in again in cities across the nation. I'm certain if Lansing lost its remaining manufacturing base, we will see slums where those autoworkers used to live.
I don't agree that Detroit became a slum because manufacturing left the city.

Detroit became a slum because the widespread use of the auto permitted people to move outside the city. Most wanted to move because they were racists who did not want to live near the rapidly expanding population of African-Americans. Then, much later, the jobs followed the whites to the suburbs. The suburbs of Detroit to this day are booming areas.

Detroit proper was killed by cars and racism!

Where I work we build custom equipment for assembly lines, primarily fluid fill and refrigeration. It's not a factory but a "job shop" and all of our employees are skilled or semi-skilled. Currently 58% of our business is the auto industry but we have been transitioning away from that and our goal is 40%.

Of course I don't want to see anything bad happen to GM and Ford (and Delphi, too) but if they did go bankrupt it probably wouldn't affect us that much, if at all. I couldn't say the same ten or twenty years ago.

I think the "big three" of the future will be Honda, Toyota, and Nissan. Nissan, by the way, is currently the bulk of our automotive business.

I don't agree that Detroit became a slum because manufacturing left the city.

Detroit became a slum because the widespread use of the auto permitted people to move outside the city. Most wanted to move because they were racists who did not want to live near the rapidly expanding population of African-Americans. Then, much later, the jobs followed the whites to the suburbs. The suburbs of Detroit to this day are booming areas.

Detroit proper was killed by cars and racism!

That's correct, Roody. And Dayton is a scaled-down version of Detroit. I work in Moraine, a primarily industrial surburb of Dayton. They alone had five GM plants there, among other GM and a Chrysler plant in the area. Most of them are gone now.

That's correct, Roody. And Dayton is a scaled-down version of Detroit. I work in Moraine, a primarily industrial surburb of Dayton. They alone had five GM plants there, among other GM and a Chrysler plant in the area. Most of them are gone now.
In Lansing we've had Oldsmobile HQ leave, then of course shut down. Two huge GM plants closed recently and a couple small ones. They are building a state of the art plant very near Lansing, in a suburb. As I understand it (which isn't very well :)), the new plant will make more cars with far fewer workers. Hundreds of parts transporter and subassembly jobs will also be lost because the new plant will be more efficient.

I really don't know what to think about all this. I'm one of those rare birds--a UAW member and an environmentalist! I worry about my city and my state, and of course all the people who currently build cars here. But I also wouldn't mind seeing a lot fewer polluting cars on the local roads, and also fewer polluting auto plants in Lansing and Michigan.

But one thing I'm pretty sure of: The OP was ridiculous to blame this loss of jobs on us!!! :roflmao:

(It would be so cool if big bicycle manufacturers came to Lansing to build bikes!)

The Death Of the Automobile? Not right away. All I have to do is step outside for a breath of (now imaginary) fresh air and see the masses of people blazing down the street in the biggest SUV they can get their hands on. And most of the people in these same vehicles road on little donkey carts just 5-10 years ago before they just wandered across our open border and took a job that an American might have worked at before. Go figure.

Hi Obliterator--Maybe you're too young to remember, or have forgotten, that this was predominately a single-provider household society until just one generation. Not long ago, women burnt their bras and took of the social chastity belts assigned to them by society for so long and went into the workforce by droves. Now, we're much closer to being a two wage earner household society. But we'll be going back closer to that original way within this coming generation. Families are already cutting back on the amount of time spent in the workplace, either because they feel they have enough money, don't want to spend the time apart, or just want to be at home raising their families.
One industry that is growing, and quite rapidly, is the environment "green" industry, which is on line to become bigger than what the automotive industry ever was. Hopefully, this green carrer trend can reverse the pollution and contaminants produced by the automotive sector (not just emissions, but waste from the manufacturing process itself) exponentially, so we can continue to thrive and debvate other topics, like this!
Cars will never go away, but hopefully they'll be bought and used more prudently.

Has anyone thought about how many jobs would be lost if people gave up purchasing new cars?
Yeah, and Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.
It's time to start saying NO to jobs, and start saying YES to the environment.

Wow, obliterator -- I had no idea! Bikeforums is destroying... our very... way of life.

What have we done? What...have...we...DONE!?!

Bikes are such a small "threat" to the economy that it's laughable.

Watch closely over the next 10-15 years as the real threats to our economy start to take effect: climate change and diminishing oil supplies.

I don't agree that Detroit became a slum because manufacturing left the city.

Detroit became a slum because the widespread use of the auto permitted people to move outside the city. Most wanted to move because they were racists who did not want to live near the rapidly expanding population of African-Americans. Then, much later, the jobs followed the whites to the suburbs. The suburbs of Detroit to this day are booming areas.

Detroit proper was killed by cars and racism!

Good one...

You might have point in that racism did play a huge part. I still believe if the manufacturing plants had stayed, you might still have a middle class white population in Detroit. I live in New Jersey and Newark had a massive manufacturing base at the turn of the century. Once these plants closed, the whites left for the burbs leaving behind a large poor black population behind. Today, Newark is poor slum but it was a combination of both that changed the city. The motorcar simply made it possible for the whites to leave for greener pastures.

Good one...

You might have point in that racism did play a huge part. I still believe if the manufacturing plants had stayed, you might still have a middle class white population in Detroit. I live in New Jersey and Newark had a massive manufacturing base at the turn of the century. Once these plants closed, the whites left for the burbs leaving behind a large poor black population behind. Today, Newark is poor slum but it was a combination of both that changed the city. The motorcar simply made it possible for the whites to leave for greener pastures.
GM headquarters are still in the central city. Detroit had and still has auto plants within the city limits, long after white flight is complete. Unfortunately, many jobs have left, and there is virtually no public transit for city residents to commute to suburban jobs. And there are no supermarkets within the city limits!

One of the greatest ironies of 20th century America is that the auto played a central role (along with racism) in the near death of Detroit.

Maybe you're too young to remember, or have forgotten, that this was predominately a single-provider household society until just one generation.
You can't forget something that never was. Prior to the end of WWII the US had never been a single breadwinner society, and even during the "Leave it to Beaver" era single breadwinner nuclear families were not the majority of households.

You can't forget something that never was. Prior to the end of WWII the US had never been a single breadwinner society, and even during the "Leave it to Beaver" era single breadwinner nuclear families were not the majority of households.
It's actually true that prior to the early 60s, there were many more single-income households. The women's movement during the 60s and early 70s resulted in more women moving into the workplace. While I think we all agree that overall this was a good thing, one of the consequences was an increase in household income, which led to housing inflation (higher income=higher prices).

Again, while I do think overall the women's movement was a good thing, it is now impossible for most couples to get by on a single income. It's simply not affordable, though for many lower wage workers it was never affordable.

some of you people are a little uptight about people wanting cars. I personally would like to see all cars gone so my bikes rides would be a more enjoyable because I would not have to worry about getting run over.
I was just asking an innocent question that wasn't biased towards a particular side. What sparked this question though, was my serious worry about other people in the world and how the loss of so many jobs would effect them and their families.

Just think of the even more terrible effect on the economy caused by people who have stopped smoking.
Our economy was not built on people smoking. There would be plenty of smaller towns that would cease to exist if it wasn't for the automobile.

Good one.

Everyone on this forum thinks the loss of automobiles will force other people to find high paying jobs in different fields. This is wishful thinking because Detroit became a slum once the manufacturing left the city and this has been repeated time in again in cities across the nation. I'm certain if Lansing lost its remaining manufacturing base, we will see slums where those autoworkers used to live.
fantastic point I was looking for a concrete example like this.

Yeah, and Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.
It's time to start saying NO to jobs, and start saying YES to the environment.
I hate this type of attitude. You would not be saying this if you were the one starving and in need of a job, what a selfish attitude you have. What good would a clean environment be if nobody was here to enjoy it because they all died of diseases and hungry. Wait what am I saying, you'd probably love it because you'd get this pristine environment all to your big hearted self.

I hate this type of attitude. You would not be saying this if you were the one starving and in need of a job, what a selfish attitude you have. What good would a clean environment be if nobody was here to enjoy it because they all died of diseases and hungry. Wait what am I saying, you'd probably love it because you'd get this pristine environment all to your big hearted self.

Hi, obliterator. I understand you are worried about the financial upheaval and social disruption that will potentially occur if and when automobiles go out of fashion or become impractical due to oil depletion. However, you should be equally or more concerned about the consequences that will and already are flowing from massive and growing automobile production/usage. You worry about starvation - well, we are paving farmland to make automobile dependent suburbia. Doesn't that worry you? You worry about disease - well, automobile culture has huge health implications...respiratory disease, obesity, motor vehicle trauma - people are dying in droves. That should concern you too. You think people care more about the environment than about other people. Well, all of us live in this environment - we don't have a spare one on Mars, so you should want to see it protected as much as the next person.
Perhaps you or someone in your family work in the automotive sector. That's fine - people need income. No-one wants to see you and your family left in the cold. But like it or not, there is a huge downside to automobile dependence, and it's not sustainable - it's going to have to end someday, either by planned phase out, or by catastrophic failure, and I for one like the first choice.
Regards
RGC

Your argument is based soley on faith that people who lose their jobs will find another one, am I correct? But the automotive industry is excessively massive employing hundreds of thousands of workers. The U.S. has been set up where goods and services are not readily accessible by bike and have been designed under the assumption that people can get their using a car. If the car manufacturers go out of buisness that would be due to a lack of interest in the autombile. And if this happens many buisnesses that rely on their customers getting to their establishment by car will lose out on many customers. In return their buisnesses will go under. So if the closure of automobile factories lead to the closure of buisnesses that rely on people having automobiles, where will all the people laid of from car plant work?
You are focusing on only one aspect of the situation: jobs. This is too limited a perspective. You could, for example, ask yourself; “if people stop buying cars, what else might they spend the money on and would that create other jobs”?

Even if you argued that they might not spend the money saved on something else and instead invest it. The same money is not going to sit idle in a vault somewhere – the bank is going to lend it out to other people. It’s called a multiplier effect.

And because these things do not happen overnight the likely outcome would be a wash.