Living Car Free - Interesting Article... Being Car Free could certainly help!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21309318/

-Grant

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21309318/

-Grant
I didn't see where the article talked about transportation or commuting costs. It seemed to focus on housing, health and child care. I saw the one to two car progression over the past 30 years.

Read part of the article...I think its misleading in some respects. The houses which people are trying to buy are much bigger and much more elaborate than what used to be considered middle class housing. This of course requires a much larger sum of money to live in, maintain, and pay for. The article does not address this "McMansion" phenomenon.
Many people could have a lot easier life and more money if they weren't trying to have the biggest and best of everything on the market. Most people do not need a 3500 sq ft house, 1 or 2 SUV's, or a 54" plasma tV in every room. But a lot of people seem to be chasing that lifestyle for whatever reason.

Yeah not too commuting oriented... They said the annual amount spent for transportation in 2005 was $8,344 with two cars in a house hold? It's gotta be more than that! Especially now!

I'm right with you Modovincere, I have a hard time understanding why a good chunk of the population is chasing all of that mess... I think it's become the new American Dream or maybe that has always been it? People would be a heck of a lot richer, healthier, and happier if they could only simplify their lives some. Everybody in the US for sure should downsize, exercise and realize the effects of their lifestyle choices. We would all be better off!

-Grant

The houses which people are trying to buy are much bigger and much more elaborate than what used to be considered middle class housing. This of course requires a much larger sum of money to live in, maintain, and pay for. The article does not address this "McMansion" phenomenon.
Unfortunately, when new housing developments go up, they usually feature large houses on large lots or large houses squished onto what would have been good lots 30 years ago. This trend ultimately affects what kinds of properties are on the market.

Where I live, the market has some townhouses, a few modest older houses and a growing number of large houses. There are also seniors' condominium units, but seniors' housing is another matter entirely.

At least if people spend their money on houses they have a chance of breaking even after thier interest assuming they have a mortgage. Cars are just money down the ****ter.

A popular money guy on the radio has a test to let people know if they are ready to buy a new car.

Every monday on your way to work roll down your window and throw a $100.00 bill out the window. If after a month or two you are still doing that and it does not bother you then you are ready to buy.

He is getting at the point that your car will be depreciating at least that fast for the first two years.

Conspicuous consumption has always been a way of maintaining an effective display of wealth, but since the advent of large scale marketing and the continued development of consumer culture over the years, its become more and more a lifestyle for the mainstream persona, driven by the need for increasing one's presence in a world where proportionately, the individual is only continuing to grow smaller and smaller every day.

I would suggest watching the house of sand and fog, this is a good example albeit a dramatacized one, and can be translated well cross-culturally. Do people bring financial insecurity upon themselves? Certainly, although often not without at least some degree of outside influence.

There are however, some very valid considerations. Housing costs here in Alberta are a very large case point. We purchased our 3 bedroom house for $190k in 2000, I believe. Now, its value is approximately $440k. Mind you, Alberta is in an exceedingly overbearing boom right now, but housing costs everywhere seem to be rising fast.

Naturally, being car free will always help = ) especially if you can use that money to take care of what is quickly becoming the primary concern of many people: how to keep the roof over your head.

Another article of interest:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7048763.stm

...active lives partly explain why, when calorie intake was generally higher 50 years ago than today, people were slimmer.... Also, most people either cycled or walked to work. "But then in the 1950s car ownership started to increase," says Professor Fox. "It became normal for households to consider having a car. This led to a decline in activity."

Another article of interest:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7048763.stm
] Interesting points, but obesity is not "society's fault". People don't know what individual responsibility means anymore. If you have lung cancer, it's the tobacco manufacturer's fault. If you get fat, it's the washing machine manufaturer's fault - after all, if you had to do laundry by hand, you'd spend a lot of calories and stay fit. :rolleyes:

34in. female average? Damn girl...

If you get fat, it's the washing machine manufaturer's fault - after all, if you had to do laundry by hand, you'd spend a lot of calories and stay fit. :rolleyes:

HUH??? :eek::eek::eek:

What I see from the article is that by the wife going to work (nothing wrong with that, if it is your family's choice) They have "raised" their standard of living but at a cost; second car, daycare, etc. The only real increased expense item I saw on that list was health insurance costs and that is a very real issue. I look back at some of the older members of my family and they lived fairly simply, did not have big fancy houses,(paid off the ones they lived in) buy new cars every two years (with a couple of notable exceptions) and had savings in the bank. Today people with the same or similar jobs to my relatives want to live in a big house in the 'burbs have two fancy cars and a swimming pool. For the most part I contend that people bring it on themselves by their choices. As an example: my wife and I have been looking at purchasing a house in a nearby small town where our shop is. We "qualify" for a $350-400k mortgage. There is NO WAY IN HELL that I am going to get roped into that one. We have been fed the BS line that a house is a great investment, this is the best neighborhood in town, this is where all the "right" people live, yadda, yadda. That agent is no longer representing us. The 3 houses we have narrowed it down to, are all smaller older ones in the old part of town. And the prices are less than half of what we "qualified" for. They are all solid built houses ranging in size from 1400 to 2100 square feet. The oldest was built around 1903 the newest in 1970's, all within walking distance of the shop which is in the middle of downtown.

It all comes down to choices and the ones we make, if more people would make different choices and refuse to buy the crap that is shoved down our throats as normal it will make changes, but too many people want to follow the herd. So they get what the herd gets.:D

Aaron;)

Unfortunately, when new housing developments go up, they usually feature large houses on large lots or large houses squished onto what would have been good lots 30 years ago. This trend ultimately affects what kinds of properties are on the market.

Where I live, the market has some townhouses, a few modest older houses and a growing number of large houses. There are also seniors' condominium units, but seniors' housing is another matter entirely.


Agreed.

House costs are going through the roof because developers continue to build homes that are not affordable. The term "Luxury Housing" has replaced the word "Affordable" forcing people to borrow huge mortgages.