Living Car Free - Dollar-value of the benefits of car ownership

The thread linked below looks at the dollar value of not using a car: (it asks, essentially, "how much would they have to bribe you to get you to drive to work every day instead of biking?")

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=504482

My question is, when you do not consider the things you don't like about cars (cost, lack of exercise, etc) what is the money value of the benefits a car* can provide? I am mainly thinking of a car but you may answer for an SUV/pickup/minivan if you prefer.

The downsides of cars are plentiful (pollution, danger, $$ for insurance/purchase/repair/fuel, less exercise, land use, $$ for road construction&maintenance ) and well-discussed on this forum. The up-sides are also sometimes discussed but the financial up-sides are what I'm particularly interested in focusing on for this thread. Feel free to argue that, even ignoring everything you don't like about cars, the money value of the benefits of having a car is small or negligible.

*one you own or get to use every day

For me the money value of a car is slim to none. I wouldn't have a better job or work longer hours if I had a car, I wouldn't be able to buy cheaper stuff at stores. There are a couple leisure activities I could do better with a car, but that doesn't have any money value.

Maybe somebody will think of something that applies to me, but offhand I can't think of any money value for me.

There is a good book I just finished that has a work sheet you can fill out that will tell you exactly what your car cost you. The book is called "Living well without owning a car." Unfortunately I am moving to Korea in a few weeks and the book has been pack so I can not include its contents. However, I can contribute that the biggest cost associated with the average car owner is actually depreciation, which most people neglect to consider when buying a car. Also, cars that do not depreciate much, such as older models over 100k, have much higher repair and maintenance cost which tends to overshadow some of the savings.

Here are reasons why a person like me might consider a car to have useful value in money terms:

One job I was asked to apply for was at least 70 minutes away from home by car. From my perspective, this was not a reasonable job to consider without a car. I got another job, probably just as good, a month or two later. Lost income due to not driving to that job? $2000 or so.

For one job, I traveled 34 miles round trip (in a hilly area) each day, sometimes by bike and sometimes by car. If I assumed that the value of time-not-working-or-traveling to me was $12 per hour, which is what my pay rate was at the time, that means that driving a car was providing me with $12-$18 of time-savings benefit per day, or several thousand dollars per year. (Driving was also costing a lot... but biking was leaving me exhausted all evening 5 days a week which was arguably worth hundreds of dollars per week... but then if I had been slowing down and drinking more water I would not have been exhausted every evening)

Assuming you are able to choose a greater variety of jobs and gain work experience faster when you have a car (doesn't seem to be true for me personally, right now) the benefits of having a car could seem much bigger.

Here are reasons why a person like me might consider a car to have useful value in money terms:

One job I was asked to apply for was at least 70 minutes away from home by car. From my perspective, this was not a reasonable job to consider without a car. I got another job, probably just as good, a month or two later. Lost income due to not driving to that job? $2000 or so.

For one job, I traveled 34 miles round trip (in a hilly area) each day, sometimes by bike and sometimes by car. If I assumed that the value of time-not-working-or-traveling to me was $12 per hour, which is what my pay rate was at the time, that means that driving a car was providing me with $12-$18 of time-savings benefit per day, or several thousand dollars per year. (Driving was also costing a lot... but biking was leaving me exhausted all evening 5 days a week which was arguably worth hundreds of dollars per week... but then if I had been slowing down and drinking more water I would not have been exhausted every evening)

Assuming you are able to choose a greater variety of jobs and gain work experience faster when you have a car (doesn't seem to be true for me personally, right now) the benefits of having a car could seem much bigger.

No job pays enough to get me to drive 70 miles each way. They say time is money, I'd rather have the time.

No job pays enough to get me to drive 70 miles each way. They say time is money, I'd rather have the time.

+1 Other peoples time maybe money but my time IS MY LIFE!

+1 Other peoples time maybe money but my time IS MY LIFE!

+1 :D

One financial benefit of owning a car (pardon if this has been said already) is that if you take good car of the vehicle, you can sell it for money if you're ever in a financial. Of course, how much of a benefit that is depends on a number of factors. Cars in general tend to be terrible financial "investments", because of the depreciation and inevitable decay of the car from being used.

For one job, I traveled 34 miles round trip (in a hilly area) each day, sometimes by bike and sometimes by car. If I assumed that the value of time-not-working-or-traveling to me was $12 per hour, which is what my pay rate was at the time, that means that driving a car was providing me with $12-$18 of time-savings benefit per day, or several thousand dollars per year. (Driving was also costing a lot... but biking was leaving me exhausted all evening 5 days a week which was arguably worth hundreds of dollars per week... but then if I had been slowing down and drinking more water I would not have been exhausted every evening)


I think there's a flaw in the logic here. You're talking about what economists call "opportunity costs" here. By bike commuting you were losing the opportunity to earn more money at the rate of $12 and hour. You weren't actually losing even one penny.

And this works both ways. I need to exercise 60 to 90 minutes a day. By combining that time with my commute time (30 minutes a day) and errand running time, I'm actually being more efficient and saving time. This provides me with the opportunity to work more hours when I want to.

There is no upside to owning a car if you have public transportation available 24/7. If not then
one must find a way to transport those goods needs to run a houshold.

A car is a total loss for the money end of it.

In the book that I mentioned earlier the author starts the first chapter with "the decision to own a car is the worst financial moves that most people will make throughout their live, and they will do it again and again." Any thoughts?

+1 :D

One financial benefit of owning a car (pardon if this has been said already) is that if you take good car of the vehicle, you can sell it for money if you're ever in a financial. Of course, how much of a benefit that is depends on a number of factors. Cars in general tend to be terrible financial "investments", because of the depreciation and inevitable decay of the car from being used.

IF there is a market for said vehicle (think of the value crash in trucks and SUV's during the last gas price run up), and most cases it will be at a loss, as well as money lost while waiting for the car to sell. Forum member political geek, just went through this. He wasn't in any hurry to sell, but even listing it below book value it didn't seem to be moving. IIRC he ended up selling it to CarMax just to get it out of his life.

Aaron:)

Here's my sob story.. :) Having a car will get you a job, while not having one will put you on the bottom of the pile of candidates, everytime. That's the awful truth, at least in my case. (Don't take this as some absolute truth, its just my subjective experience, opinion.)

Maybe I don't have the degree of skills, education or work ethic that many in this forum have so my unemployment is not all to do with being carless, however I find how easily you are overlooked by potential employers quite disheartening and unfair. Probably most of you would have similar stories, experiences.

In my case going without a car has made me very poor (money wise, cycling has been great!) and narrowed down my choices alot. I like to stand for what I believe in and will continue to do so, its just that personally i'm on a sinking ship... (help!)

Here's my sob story.. :) Having a car will get you a job, while not having one will put you on the bottom of the pile of candidates, everytime. That's the awful truth, at least in my case. (Don't take this as some absolute truth, its just my subjective experience, opinion.)

Maybe I don't have the degree of skills, education or work ethic that many in this forum have so my unemployment is not all to do with being carless, however I find how easily you are overlooked by potential employers quite disheartening and unfair. Probably most of you would have similar stories, experiences.

In my case going without a car has made me very poor (money wise, cycling has been great!) and narrowed down my choices alot. I like to stand for what I believe in and will continue to do so, its just that personally i'm on a sinking ship... (help!)

Everytime I was asked if I had a car the answer was yes...but I didn't point out it was an MG and was in pieces in my parents garage.:innocent: I cycled to that job for over 5 years before I moved on. Hopefully we will see some changes in societal attitudes, but they will be slow in coming. The company I work for requires dependable transportation, we don't car what you use, however most of our work is out of town so a car is quite often required.:mad:

Aaron:)

I need to exercise 60 to 90 minutes a day. By combining that time with my commute time (30 minutes a day) and errand running time, I'm actually being more efficient and saving time. This provides me with the opportunity to work more hours when I want to.

Do you have some sort of rare medical condition that requires that much exercise? If I had such a condition, I'd get a job that is itself exercise and then drive or take public transportation to work and have more free time in my life.

This thread is doomed to being nothing more than people rationalizing their own choices. Here's mine. I lived car free from about '86 to '98, which included university and then a regular adult life - but in Tokyo. It made total sense to not have a car in Tokyo since there were much faster and more convenient transportation options (usually a combination of bike/walk/train). When I moved to the San Francisco area in '98, I quickly realized that owning a car was going to be the smart choice and that without one, my world would be very small. So I now rely on a 40 year old Italian convertible to get me around to places I can't get to by train or on bike/foot (yes, you can get nearly anywhere on bike or foot but not in the amount of hours I have in a day...).

Here's my sob story.. :) Having a car will get you a job, while not having one will put you on the bottom of the pile of candidates, everytime. That's the awful truth, at least in my case. (Don't take this as some absolute truth, its just my subjective experience, opinion.)

Maybe I don't have the degree of skills, education or work ethic that many in this forum have so my unemployment is not all to do with being carless, however I find how easily you are overlooked by potential employers quite disheartening and unfair.

I think you're totally right that not having a car will put you at the bottom of the heap. I think this is especially true when it comes to entry level jobs. At a job interview, a candidate for an executive or professional position probably isn't even asked if he/she has a car. For somebody applying to flip burgers, it's often the first question that's asked.

We know that "Do you have a car?" and "Do you have reliable transportation?" are two very different questions. Unfortunately, most human resource officers and assistant managers at McDonalds don't know this.

In the long run, we can try to educate the public so that most people (including McDonald's managers) understand that bikes are good transportation. In the meantime, your best bet might be to get more education, training, or experience so that you can apply for positions where car ownership isn't required.

Do you have some sort of rare medical condition that requires that much exercise? If I had such a condition, I'd get a job that is itself exercise and then drive or take public transportation to work and have more free time in my life.


Yes, I have a medical condition that requires exercise. No, it's not a rare condition. In fact, it's almost universal.

Thanks for the career advice, even if I didn't ask for it. However, I think I'll pass on your suggestion to get a "physical" job. I'm not much interested in digging ditches or working on a moving van; I'd rather be riding my bike.

Do you have some sort of rare medical condition that requires that much exercise? If I had such a condition, I'd get a job that is itself exercise and then drive or take public transportation to work and have more free time in my life.

This thread is doomed to being nothing more than people rationalizing their own choices. Here's mine. I lived car free from about '86 to '98, which included university and then a regular adult life - but in Tokyo. It made total sense to not have a car in Tokyo since there were much faster and more convenient transportation options (usually a combination of bike/walk/train). When I moved to the San Francisco area in '98, I quickly realized that owning a car was going to be the smart choice and that without one, my world would be very small. So I now rely on a 40 year old Italian convertible to get me around to places I can't get to by train or on bike/foot (yes, you can get nearly anywhere on bike or foot but not in the amount of hours I have in a day...).

A very large portion of the US public (http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/trend/maps/) has a not so rare "medical condition" (http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w4.480/DC1)...that could be easily overcome by cycling (or other forms of exercise).

Unfortunately the number of physical jobs that pay living wages are few and far between...so we do the best we can with what we have, and that includes making time for exercise.

Aaron:)

Yes, I have a medical condition that requires exercise. No, it's not a rare condition. In fact, it's almost universal.

Thanks for the career advice, even if I didn't ask for it. However, I think I'll pass on your suggestion to get a "physical" job. I'm not much interested in digging ditches or working on a moving van; I'd rather be riding my bike.

You don't have to get all tweaked about it. I didn't give you any advice. I simply stated what I would do if I really needed 90 min of exercise a day. But unless one has a job that involves lying down and stuffing one's face with food, they don't need any more than 30 min of mild exercise a day. Sure, you like to ride your bike, but just say so. Instead, you're trying to say that you'd save no time in your life by having a car because you'd have to go exercise for 90 min anyway. You won't convince anyone to take up bike commuting with that kind of argument.

Do you have some sort of rare medical condition that requires that much exercise? If I had such a condition, I'd get a job that is itself exercise and then drive or take public transportation to work and have more free time in my life.

This thread is doomed to being nothing more than people rationalizing their own choices. Here's mine. I lived car free from about '86 to '98, which included university and then a regular adult life - but in Tokyo. It made total sense to not have a car in Tokyo since there were much faster and more convenient transportation options (usually a combination of bike/walk/train). When I moved to the San Francisco area in '98, I quickly realized that owning a car was going to be the smart choice and that without one, my world would be very small. So I now rely on a 40 year old Italian convertible to get me around to places I can't get to by train or on bike/foot (yes, you can get nearly anywhere on bike or foot but not in the amount of hours I have in a day...).

The San Francisco Bay area has some of the best mass transit that this country has to offer... Where do you need to be so fast? How often do you exercise and when you do, do you drive to a gym? Did they have teleporters in Japan? We cyclists like to use our time wisely just like anyone else. However, I dont like to be smug about it as if my time is worth more than other peoples or be unwilling to spend an extra few minutes in transit everyday in order to reduce my carbon foot print. I dont think owning a car in the Bay area makes any sense.

You don't have to get all tweaked about it. I didn't give you any advice. I simply stated what I would do if I really needed 90 min of exercise a day. But unless one has a job that involves lying down and stuffing one's face with food, they don't need any more than 30 min of mild exercise a day. Sure, you like to ride your bike, but just say so. Instead, you're trying to say that you'd save no time in your life by having a car because you'd have to go exercise for 90 min anyway. You won't convince anyone to take up bike commuting with that kind of argument.

Humans are designed to be exercising almost constantly. Walking is one of the best exercises the human body can do because we have evolved as such. In-fact one of the prime motivators for our bipedalism is the ability to cover grate distances for foraging, hunting, and to live a generally nomadic life. I do not see how 30 mins of exercise a day comes even close to what we are really designed to do, such as chasing our food down and beating it to death with a stick :p I know that when I get on my bike I wont even break a sweat in 30 mins. 90 mins is not an unrealistic amount of exercise, it may however, be a too much to comprehend for the average cubicle working, tv sloth. For those people, some physicians will set the bar nice and low with 30 mins a day, and they will still not do it... ;)

a human being is designed for long distance, multi-hour pursuit of food.

we can trump nearly any other animal in sheer endurance, wearing them down, and then
wham we can easily kill exhausted prey


so....yeah. we have the cooling system, and tool making ability, and smarts other animals
don't have. bipedal gait is the most efficient and energy saving way to move through the jungle
and for that factor, plus sweating and no fur, we can chase down anything until it drops
from exhaustion. so......sedentary is not really what our bodies are about

You don't have to get all tweaked about it. I didn't give you any advice. I simply stated what I would do if I really needed 90 min of exercise a day. But unless one has a job that involves lying down and stuffing one's face with food, they don't need any more than 30 min of mild exercise a day. Sure, you like to ride your bike, but just say so. Instead, you're trying to say that you'd save no time in your life by having a car because you'd have to go exercise for 90 min anyway. You won't convince anyone to take up bike commuting with that kind of argument.

My round trip commute (8 miles) is about 30 minutes by bike. It'd be about 15 minutes by car. But I'd have to add 15 minutes to my exercise time if I drove to work. Therefore, since I'm killing two birds with one stone, I'm not spending any more time if I ride instead of drive to work.

BTW, your medical advice about 30 minutes of exercise a day is no more helpful than your career advice that I get a job digging ditches. My doctor tells me that my heart and waistline need more than an hour of exercise a day. With today's busy lifestyles, the best way for many people to get that much saddle time is to combine exercise with other activities that they have to do anyway.

You also said something about driving to create more free time. Believe me though, I never feel freer than when I'm riding my bike.

Another factor is that most Americans spend about 20 per cent of their income on their cars. In other words, they work one day a week to pay for the car. I decided long ago to do without a car, and to work only 4 days a week. So this is another way that cycling instead of driving gives me more free time, not less.

And guess what I usually do on my extra day off!

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ZFzawz__XYM/SKLKKvmZ3dI/AAAAAAAAAuk/q-AuBo44Mzo/s400/ice-bike.jpg

I think you're totally right that not having a car will put you at the bottom of the heap.

I would love to see a survey on this (real survey, not a forum poll!). I'm 37, and I have NEVER been asked at any job if I had "transportation" etc. I was asked about punctuality a few times, but never once in my life was I asked how I got to work. I've never actually asked friends about their experiences, so I don't know if I am the anomaly, or if that just isn't done around here. Odd.

Canada vs. US? Large city? High transit model split? Or maybe its just because I tend to interview the interviewer?

I've had a strange work history, maybe I'm just weird.

I would love to see a survey on this (real survey, not a forum poll!). I'm 37, and I have NEVER been asked at any job if I had "transportation" etc. I was asked about punctuality a few times, but never once in my life was I asked how I got to work. I've never actually asked friends about their experiences, so I don't know if I am the anomaly, or if that just isn't done around here. Odd.

Canada vs. US? Large city? High transit model split? Or maybe its just because I tend to interview the interviewer?

I've had a strange work history, maybe I'm just weird.

I think the factor is the type of job you apply for. The lower the pay, the more likely that they'll ask you about your car. A friend tells me (and I've observed) that if you even ask for a job as a dishwasher in a restaurant, they'll often ask you about your transportation before they even hand you the job app.

It's easy to train people for these jobs, so the main thing they want is that employees show up for work reliably. The managers that make the hiring decisions are just reflecting the prevailing opinion that cars are more reliable than bikes.

I would love to see a survey on this (real survey, not a forum poll!). I'm 37, and I have NEVER been asked at any job if I had "transportation" etc. I was asked about punctuality a few times, but never once in my life was I asked how I got to work. I've never actually asked friends about their experiences, so I don't know if I am the anomaly, or if that just isn't done around here. Odd.

Canada vs. US? Large city? High transit model split? Or maybe its just because I tend to interview the interviewer?

I've had a strange work history, maybe I'm just weird.

yup..you're weird;):roflmao2:

I suspect it is the type of job, the locale (US vs Canada) and possibly the person's job history.

Also too many employers(and people who work for them) are unable to see beyond their narrow way of doing things. The company I work for requires me to have a truck, they reimburse me for the use of the truck. When I work out of town I take a bike with me, it is not unusual for the truck to sit until it is time for me to drive back home, in some cases as long as a month. It completely freaks them out that I do it, but as long as I get my job done they really don't have room to complain. In another case I was taking Amtrak back and forth between the jobsite and my home, much easier on me and saved them and me money. Again they didn't get it, but loved the savings involved.

Aaron:)

I think the factor is the type of job you apply for. The lower the pay, the more likely that they'll ask you about your car.

If that was the case, I would have been asked the car question for every job I've ever had! The most I've ever earned was "a bit more than crap", and sick-days and paid holidays are foreign concepts to me.

However most of my jobs have been either and an office temp (many moons ago), or with small businesses. That may be more of a factor.

yup..you're weird;):roflmao2:

Pretty much, yup.


I suspect it is the type of job, the locale (US vs Canada) and possibly the person's job history.

I Googled for those "questions NOT to ask an employee during an interview" lists, and transportation was not listed as a topic to avoid, so I doubt its policy not to ask. This has me curious, so I will bug my friends about this over the next week.

I've certainly never asked the question when I interviewed someone, although I did ask pointed questions about what they considered "on time." I'm an easy-going guy - but show up late to a wedding or corporate job and you'll never work for me again.

I Googled for those "questions NOT to ask an employee during an interview" lists, and transportation was not listed as a topic to avoid, so I doubt its policy not to ask. This has me curious, so I will bug my friends about this over the next week.

I've certainly never asked the question when I interviewed someone, although I did ask pointed questions about what they considered "on time." I'm an easy-going guy - but show up late to a wedding or corporate job and you'll never work for me again.

I would have no problem with asking if reliable transportation is available. I might have a different take on what's reliable. The car that an average entry level employee can afford is probably not reliable. From most to least reliable, I would rank transportation modes like this:


walking
bike
subway or commuter train
car
bus (but is more reliable in some cities than others)



But ultimately I think reliability is a personality trait more than a transit choice.

I would have no problem with asking if reliable transportation is available. I might have a different take on what's reliable. The car that an average entry level employee can afford is probably not reliable. From most to least reliable, I would rank transportation modes like this:


walking
bike
subway or commuter train
car
bus (but is more reliable in some cities than others)



But ultimately I think reliability is a personality trait more than a transit choice.

Bingo!:thumb: so is punctuality

We work out of town on a regular basis, I put all the guys in the same extended stay motel, they have a crew van to get back and forth to the job site. The driver of van is a very dependable worker with a good track record (and a driver's license :rolleyes:) He has been directed to leave the hotel at a certain time, every member of the crew is told that the "bus" be rollin' at a certain time, not on board? You don't make it to work and lose a day's pay and your per diem:eek: Even with that, I still have people that can't make it to work on time. Funny part is I ride my bike and get there on time, every time. (Must be why I am the babysit...I mean boss :D)

Aaron:)

But ultimately I think reliability is a personality trait more than a transit choice.

Absolutely. And "punctual" means different things to different people - to me, if your job starts at 9, you are sitting at your desk at 9. Walking in at 9, going to the men's room, taking off your boots, making coffee, and eventually sitting at your desk at 9:15 is called "late for work" in my books.

As for the questions-not-to-ask thing, I can think of no reason not to ask about transportation during a job interview. There are, however, guidelines published for these things to protect an employer from accusations of discrimination - for example it is strongly recommended (here) to avoid asking about marital/relationship status.

The San Francisco Bay area has some of the best mass transit that this country has to offer... Where do you need to be so fast? How often do you exercise and when you do, do you drive to a gym? Did they have teleporters in Japan? We cyclists like to use our time wisely just like anyone else. However, I dont like to be smug about it as if my time is worth more than other peoples or be unwilling to spend an extra few minutes in transit everyday in order to reduce my carbon foot print. I dont think owning a car in the Bay area makes any sense.

I live on the coast, but work near the bay. If you're familiar with bay area geography, you'll know why it is not practical to bike this route. Here would be the beginning of my commute, for example (and no, there really isn't an easier way): http://www.3jar.com/rich/bikes/manor_streetview.gif Then I'd have several other climbs and descents in the 11 miles to work. It would take at least 2 hrs. to do this round trip bike commute every day, or I can just drive in 30 minutes. There is no public transportation combination I could take that would be take less than 90 min each way. Even if I really felt like riding my bike 120min a day (sometimes i do), i'd prefer to pick the location and not have to do so on a commute through town in traffic: i'd prefer the trails up and down the coastal hills. With the time I save by driving, I could bike wherever I want.

This is the public transportation availability and geographical terrain reality that most Americans, even those in the bay area live in. It's ridiculous to expect us to have the same bicycle and walking usage as we did in Japan or people have in some parts of Europe where they have totally different situations.

And no, I don't belong to a gym, and yet in my 40s I manage to weigh the same 150 lbs. I always have. I'm at least as flexible and as strong as ever. I don't need 90 min of biking next to cars everyday to maintain this. Those of you who have let your waistlines get out of control or have other medical concerns may have different needs, sure.

It's funny that you guys champion exerting yourself physically in your commute as "killing two birds with one stone," as far as exercise goes, but look down on people who simply avoid the need for exercise in the first place by not having sedentary jobs (i.e. when i suggested getting exercise at work, it's dismissed with "no way will i be a lowly ditch digger" type comments: sounds like a pretty smart lifestyle to me). Most of the world uses their bodies during the day. It is only a small subset of 1st world population that can sit on its ass all day and then has to exercise before or after. I'm not sure that kind of lifestyle is anything to be proud of.

We all agree with the absurdity of people being stuck in traffic on their way to the gym to ride a stationary bike. And you guys here find it silly to drive to work and then ride a bike afterwards instead of simply biking to work. I'm left wondering why is it not equally absurd for people to 'work' in a totally sedentary fashion and then have to exercise afterwards?

I live on the coast, but work near the bay. If you're familiar with bay area geography, you'll know why it is not practical to bike this route. Here would be the beginning of my commute, for example (and no, there really isn't an easier way): http://www.3jar.com/rich/bikes/manor_streetview.gif Then I'd have several other climbs and descents in the 11 miles to work. It would take at least 2 hrs. to do this round trip bike commute every day, or I can just drive in 30 minutes. There is no public transportation combination I could take that would be take less than 90 min each way. Even if I really felt like riding my bike 120min a day (sometimes i do), i'd prefer to pick the location and not have to do so on a commute through town in traffic: i'd prefer the trails up and down the coastal hills. With the time I save by driving, I could bike wherever I want.

This is the public transportation availability and geographical terrain reality that most Americans, even those in the bay area live in. It's ridiculous to expect us to have the same bicycle and walking usage as we did in Japan or people have in some parts of Europe where they have totally different situations.

And no, I don't belong to a gym, and yet in my 40s I manage to weigh the same 150 lbs. I always have. I'm at least as flexible and as strong as ever. I don't need 90 min of biking next to cars everyday to maintain this. Those of you who have let your waistlines get out of control or have other medical concerns may have different needs, sure.

It's funny that you guys champion exerting yourself physically in your commute as "killing two birds with one stone," as far as exercise goes, but look down on people who simply avoid the need for exercise in the first place by not having sedentary jobs (i.e. when i suggested getting exercise at work, it's dismissed with "no way will i be a lowly ditch digger" type comments: sounds like a pretty smart lifestyle to me). Most of the world uses their bodies during the day. It is only a small subset of 1st world population that can sit on its ass all day and then has to exercise before or after. I'm not sure that kind of lifestyle is anything to be proud of.

We all agree with the absurdity of people being stuck in traffic on their way to the gym to ride a stationary bike. And you guys here find it silly to drive to work and then ride a bike afterwards instead of simply biking to work. I'm left wondering why is it not equally absurd for people to 'work' in a totally sedentary fashion and then have to exercise afterwards?

I don't even know where to start. :D

We all agree with the absurdity of people being stuck in traffic on their way to the gym to ride a stationary bike.


+1

:thumb:

Here's my sob story.. :) Having a car will get you a job, while not having one will put you on the bottom of the pile of candidates, everytime. That's the awful truth, at least in my case. (Don't take this as some absolute truth, its just my subjective experience, opinion.)

Maybe I don't have the degree of skills, education or work ethic that many in this forum have so my unemployment is not all to do with being carless, however I find how easily you are overlooked by potential employers quite disheartening and unfair. Probably most of you would have similar stories, experiences.

In my case going without a car has made me very poor (money wise, cycling has been great!) and narrowed down my choices alot. I like to stand for what I believe in and will continue to do so, its just that personally i'm on a sinking ship... (help!)

I've never had an employer ask if I had a car. Assuming it's a job that can be done on-site, I'm sure they honestly don't care, as long as you make it to work on time every day. Unless you're in a job that requires a lot of travel from site to site, such as the job Wahoon has, or being a real estate agent, or intensive face-to-face sales work, I can't imagine that car ownership would even be an employment issue at all. Unless, of course, you're foolish enough to be willing to live 100km from your place of employment.

If I were offered a well-paying job that was a great distance from my house, I would probably not take it, and look for work closer to home. If it was a really, really great job, or if there was a global economic collapse that made good jobs incredibly scarce, leaving me with no choice, I would move closer to the job. There's no way I would commute by car for 2-4 hours a day. In addition to the great expense of owning a car, being trapped in a metal box for that length of time, day in and day out, would so diminish your quality of life that no amount of money would be worth it, IMO.

Absolutely. And "punctual" means different things to different people - to me, if your job starts at 9, you are sitting at your desk at 9. Walking in at 9, going to the men's room, taking off your boots, making coffee, and eventually sitting at your desk at 9:15 is called "late for work" in my books.

As for the questions-not-to-ask thing, I can think of no reason not to ask about transportation during a job interview. There are, however, guidelines published for these things to protect an employer from accusations of discrimination - for example it is strongly recommended (here) to avoid asking about marital/relationship status.

Do you think the fact that a person doesn't have a car is a good reason not to hire them?

Do you think the fact that a person doesn't have a car is a good reason not to hire them?

I'm an anti-car nut, so obviously "no".

In my experience, though, cyclists and transit users are more likely to arrive on time reliably over the winter. Somehow shovelling driveways and snow-covered streets come as a daily surprise to some drivers :p

I really think that commuting questions are pointless in a job interview . What really matters is reliability and punctuality - in other words, matters of work ethic.

I don't recall ever being asked if I had a car by a prospective employer, and I've pretty much always had "lower level" jobs. Of course, I'd always had a car until my current job, so there's a chance I simply don't remember. Regardless, I arrive to work on time nearly 100% of the time, where as most of my fellow employees are very often not. I blame the fact that they, for some reason, think they can get across town in rush hour traffic in 6 minutes, and wake up 20 minutes before they have to be at work. :innocent:

Absolutely. And "punctual" means different things to different people - to me, if your job starts at 9, you are sitting at your desk at 9. Walking in at 9, going to the men's room, taking off your boots, making coffee, and eventually sitting at your desk at 9:15 is called "late for work" in my books.



My workplace uses microsoft software so I can walk in turn on the computer, go to the men's room, wash up, change clothes get some coffee and the computer is still booting up. I surreptitiously installed Ubuntu Linux on an old laptop so I can respond to e-mails and run statistical analysis while the microsoft machine is still booting. My co-workers just use the boot up time for kaffeeklatsch - they don't know and don't want to know about Linux.

Do you think the fact that a person doesn't have a car is a good reason not to hire them?

If history tells me that employees without a car are not dependable, then yes. I'm not saying that's the "right" answer, just the one that many employers will come to.

I agree though, that this tends to be almost exclusively an issue with lower paying positions.

I missed the bus
My car wouldn't start
My friends car wouldn't start
I can't stay late to close because the last bus stop is at 9pm

... all things that the McDonalds manager doesn't want to hear about.

I live on the coast, but work near the bay. If you're familiar with bay area geography, you'll know why it is not practical to bike this route. Here would be the beginning of my commute, for example (and no, there really isn't an easier way): http://www.3jar.com/rich/bikes/manor_streetview.gif Then I'd have several other climbs and descents in the 11 miles to work. It would take at least 2 hrs. to do this round trip bike commute every day, or I can just drive in 30 minutes. There is no public transportation combination I could take that would be take less than 90 min each way. Even if I really felt like riding my bike 120min a day (sometimes i do), i'd prefer to pick the location and not have to do so on a commute through town in traffic: i'd prefer the trails up and down the coastal hills. With the time I save by driving, I could bike wherever I want.

This is the public transportation availability and geographical terrain reality that most Americans, even those in the bay area live in. It's ridiculous to expect us to have the same bicycle and walking usage as we did in Japan or people have in some parts of Europe where they have totally different situations.

And no, I don't belong to a gym, and yet in my 40s I manage to weigh the same 150 lbs. I always have. I'm at least as flexible and as strong as ever. I don't need 90 min of biking next to cars everyday to maintain this. Those of you who have let your waistlines get out of control or have other medical concerns may have different needs, sure.

It's funny that you guys champion exerting yourself physically in your commute as "killing two birds with one stone," as far as exercise goes, but look down on people who simply avoid the need for exercise in the first place by not having sedentary jobs (i.e. when i suggested getting exercise at work, it's dismissed with "no way will i be a lowly ditch digger" type comments: sounds like a pretty smart lifestyle to me). Most of the world uses their bodies during the day. It is only a small subset of 1st world population that can sit on its ass all day and then has to exercise before or after. I'm not sure that kind of lifestyle is anything to be proud of.

We all agree with the absurdity of people being stuck in traffic on their way to the gym to ride a stationary bike. And you guys here find it silly to drive to work and then ride a bike afterwards instead of simply biking to work. I'm left wondering why is it not equally absurd for people to 'work' in a totally sedentary fashion and then have to exercise afterwards?

Geez, I thought commuting in -30C and icy caked roads was bad...

If history tells me that employees without a car are not dependable, then yes. I'm not saying that's the "right" answer, just the one that many employers will come to.

I agree though, that this tends to be almost exclusively an issue with lower paying positions.

I missed the bus
My car wouldn't start
My friends car wouldn't start
I can't stay late to close because the last bus stop is at 9pm

... all things that the McDonalds manager doesn't want to hear about.

It's pretty twisted that people who have low-paying jobs are expected by their employers to have cars, when they often can barely afford to own them, while employers of better-paid workers don't really bring it up. I don't think it's an issue of reliability. If an employee is unreliable, having a car will not make them more reliable. If a person has a sense of responsibility, they'll arrange to be at work on time whether they have a car or not. I kind of think managers of low-paid workers just like to f*ck with people.

No job pays enough to get me to drive 70 miles each way. They say time is money, I'd rather have the time.

Not all of us have a choice. You often have to take what job is available, however far away it may be.

Then you have to consider that there are still places in America where 70 miles is not considered that great of a distance. My mother has a ranch in West Texas, her driveway is 12.5 miles long, and the nearest town is 80 miles away.

Not all of us have a choice. You often have to take what job is available, however far away it may be.

Then you have to consider that there are still places in America where 70 miles is not considered that great of a distance. My mother has a ranch in West Texas, her driveway is 12.5 miles long, and the nearest town is 80 miles away.

How many miles is your mother's daily commute to work?

Not all of us have a choice. You often have to take what job is available, however far away it may be.

Then you have to consider that there are still places in America where 70 miles is not considered that great of a distance. My mother has a ranch in West Texas, her driveway is 12.5 miles long, and the nearest town is 80 miles away.

People talk about how spread-out Texas is, but it's got nothin' on the area where I grew up in rural western Alaska.

If you want to be a self-sufficient rancher, it may make sense to live on a ranch 80 miles away from the nearest town. If you want to have a job where you earn money, you can live on a ranch and drive to the job but you can also choose to live within a town or village where there's a job.

In Sleetmute, Alaska, a village of 200, everyone who wants to work in Sleetmute lives in Sleetmute, and that means they're all within a mile or two of each other. Of course, buying food and supplies that aren't produced by the local wilderness is another matter, where people take a ride on two airplanes in each direction... it's half a day of your time just to get to Anchorage.

Point is, people can choose to live near the things they need, or they can choose to live far from the things they need. Back when people became people, we certainly didn't become a species that was made for the automobile.

...
Point is, people can choose to live near the things they need, or they can choose to live far from the things they need. Back when people became people, we certainly didn't become a species that was made for the automobile.

I'm not sure what profession you're in. But sometimes you just don't have that much choice. My wife is a PhD Biochemist. Jobs at that level are few and far between so we moved half-way across the country when she found a good job. Trouble was, I then had to find a new job. I worked as a contractor for two and a half years and one of my contracts was 35 miles away (all city traffic). And I was out of work for two months before that and nearly six months after that. But we had bills to pay so I had to work somewhere, even if it was a 60-90 minute hellish commute each way.

All's well that ends well tho. We both got better jobs closer to home now. And I can bike to work! :)

But sometimes you just don't have that much choice. My wife is a PhD Biochemist. Jobs at that level are few and far between so we moved half-way across the country when she found a good job.

That's true, but if a person lives 80 miles from their work, in the middle of nowhere, I bet it isn't because they moved to the middle of nowhere for a specialized job.

Being able to work a zillion miles away from home and to take the very best (for you) job within a couple hours' drive of home is one of the reasons I think there's quantifiable benefit to having a car, though.

For some folks, maybe it's worth more than the costs, for others it's not. How much money's it worth, really?

I was at a conference here in Canada a couple of years ago. The topic was "peak-oil". There was an economist who did a presentation. I've forgotten the name of the guy as well as most of the argument he presented, but the one thing that stuck in my head was this particular factoid.

Basically, if oil hits $8/litre, there's a kind of threshold where it doesn't make sense to bother working any longer.

I think that $8/litre is around $20/gallon at the current exchange rates?

The gist of his argument was that the cost to heat workplaces, travel to and from work, and to operate computers and machinery would all cease to make working a profitable proposal.

Even if a particular business could generate profit in such an environment, the wages paid to the staff wouldn't be enough for each individual to feel that working was worth the expenses involved in being at work.

Because the demand for oil etc is relatively inelastic, he was saying that it doesn't take that much of a shortage to produce high prices...I think it was something like a 5-10% shortage could raise prices 500% and such things.

Anyhow, that was about the cheeriest point he made! Some of the other analyses that might interest people here were about things like the viability of saving a lot of oil by improving the efficiency of the vehicle fleet, for example, and he sort of provided evidence that even doubling or tripling the fuel efficiency was of negligible value in the big picture.

The conversation here about the cost-benefit analysis of driving looked at on a personal level are exactly akin to what this economist was presenting at this conference. There is some magic tipping point for each person, and for any given relationship of cost of travel to work +wage earned there's a point of expense of travel where working is actually financial futility. And the whole population taken together also has a similar tipping point.

But before it gets to $20 a gallon alternatives that are way too expensive now become competitive. Not only that, even when gas was only $4 a gallon people reduced consumption.

But before it gets to $20 a gallon alternatives that are way too expensive now become competitive.

Sure. Only I'm not sure what point you're making. :)

If you're saying that we won't run out of energy completely, I'd agree. That wasn't my point.

If you're saying life will be the same without oil...I'd have to personally disagree. Fossil oil is cheap energy. As you've observed, the alternate sources we have are way more expensive than what we pay today. We really don't have any comparable source of fuel.

Life just wouldn't be the same without CHEAP energy. Those "way too expensive now" alternatives...if they are anywhere near the same cost when we're forced to buy them for lack of fossil oil, it'll be a collosal change in the way of life for most people I know.

Like, if an alternative fuel source is priced so that it only compares well in price against $20 gas it amounts to exactly the same financial pressure economically! Which is the only point I was making. :)


Not only that, even when gas was only $4 a gallon people reduced consumption.

I believe that some of the number-crunchers have analyzed the reduction and they're saying that the total reduction observed is mainly due to job losses and destruction of the economy. The higher price of fuel already edged some of the marginal cases towards the tipping point that I mentioned.

The "reduction" you're mentioning is actually empirical evidence for the economist's argument!

The reduction in consumption (for transportation etc.) is mounting the exact argument that the economist made at the conference...he was pointing out that there's an inexorable connection between the validity of vast areas of the economy and the supply of nearly limitless, nearly free energy that we've been enjoying.

The fact that gas doubled in cost and yet total consumption barely budged (except for the amount accounted for by job-losses etc.) just goes to show how "mandatory" most of the use of fuel is. "Inelastic demand."

Inelastic...up to a point, when the economic equation breaks altogether.

I believe I saw a figure that said about 9% less fuel was sold (worldwide) in 2008 vs. 2007, and look at the global economy now!

The current state of the economy wasn't caused by the price of oil. But oil prices sure dropped fast when the economy tanked!