Roody

Huh? The reported data say nothing of the distribution by income level of carfree cyclists. IOW, we don't know if carfree cyclists tend to be richer or poorer than other carfree people, or if they are evenly distributed. (If I'm missing something, please point it out.)

PlanoFuji

A quasi-statistician. Feel free to apply your expertise to the raw data and use a median or mode calculation and see if you get a different answer.

Traditional classifications; poor, middle class, and rich are usually defined by quartiles. Poor is usually classed as the lowest quartile, while rich is usually defined as the highest quartile. What that typically works out to is that 25% of the population are in the group described as poor.

Here are the traditional verbal descriptions of income quartiles;

1st quartile: poor
2nd quartile: lower middle class (or sometimes working class)
3rd quartile: upper middle class (or sometimes simply middle class)
4th quartile: rich

each quartile represents 25% of the population...

The raw data is clear. If you identify yourself as car free you are overwhelmingly more likely to be in either the 1st or 2nd quartile for income.

Roody

Since we are so stupid, would you be able to explain to us, in plain English, the story that you think the data is telling? I have read the thread carefully, and I'm not getting a clear understanding of the point you're trying to make.

PlanoFuji

No the overly simplistic analysis(particularly since that was a peripheral issue for it) report that you were so offended by doesn't. The original raw data does. Feel free to examine it, especially since you were so offended by my 'condescension'...

Just a reminder:

PlanoFuji

See post #30 , I believe I did...

charbucks

I wonder how much this will change in the future, as it seems that people of my generation aren't driving as much. While the cost of car ownership and operation is definitely cited as one cause of the decrease, there are also many other factors that don't relate to income.

Then again, most 16-34-year-olds probably don't have children, which I believe is a factor in many peoples' decisions to own a car.

Roody

Sorry... we were both typing at the same time. I guess the story from what you call "raw data" is that "if you identify yourself as carfree you are overwhelmingly more likely to be in the 1st or 2nd quartile for income."

Is that all? Pretty skimpy.... Not really a "story" at all. Was there anybody who didn't already know this? Is this why you called us together?

too bad, the Brookings report itself was pretty interesting. What you want us to discuss is trivial.

AaronSpringer

I would venture to guess that these statistics would be skewed by the many people who lose their license to DUI and are forced to use bicycles as a means of transportation. It wouldn't be a warrantless assumption that a majority of these people also fall lower on the socio-economic ladder and greatly influence the statistics in this study.

PlanoFuji

Yes it seems trivial when presented with incontrovertible data to prove it. Yet on more than one occasion when discussing the common assumption (particularly among the general population) that car-free usually means poor is addressed as a myth or stereo type (despite its basis in reality)... And then we are inundated with anecdotal evidence of specific folks who are car free and well off financially (or at least seem to be), all while implying that is the normal situation... Heck the latter was even claimed at least once in this thread... I am so glad that you at least finally understand the basis for the general assumption...

PlanoFuji

Unfortunately, in many places simply loosing one's license for DUI does not seem to actually prevent them from driving cars...

FrenchFit 

Including setting myself and my family up to be poor.

goldfinch

You imply that it is all within your control.

Roody

No. What's a mistake is to assume that somebody is poor or rich based on car ownership.

If you assume that every zero-car individual is lower income, you will be wrong in 40 percent of the cases. Even if you assume that every person with a car is middle income or high income, you will be wrong in 24 percent of your judgments. That is not a good screening instrument for important decisions like deciding whether to supply employment or housing to somebody. (Based on the table you pasted into the OP.)

It is always stupid and immoral to judge a person based on one attribute. This is the basis of stereotyping, and only lazy minds will resort to it.

Roody

If you want a good example of how to use sample data without resorting to stereotypes, read the Brookings Institute report linked to in the OP. I wish we were talking about that rather than the trivial figures that the OP pulled from the report.

PlanoFuji

Spoken like someone who has never had to wade through a stack of job applications (or rental applications) for a single job or apartment. One screens (using criteria like car free is likely poor) for a very good reason. One needs to weed out the majority of the applications to get to the few that warrant more attention... In short, if you had any real world experience you would understand that such screening judgements are both necessary and warranted.

Then there are numerous valid social reasons for doing similar screening judgements. For example; your child has just introduced you to the parents of their current love interest. Said parents mention that they are car free. Later in the conversation the topic of the four parents (again an ASSUMPTION) talk about going out for dinner. In such a situation it is simply good manners to steer the possibilities toward closer (geographically) and less expensive options. After you get to know them, other options may arise. But some of us consider it simple courtesy to avoid embarrassing people, which can happen if they feel forced to admit they can't afford a popular choice you might make.

Of course these are just a couple of valid examples of why the human mind stereo types in the first place. We are simply not equipped to process all of the information we receive, and therefore need to filter it and prioritize how we deal with it. Though it is clear that you don't approve of anyone whose priorities are different from yours... In fact when I have time I will be glad to start a thread with all of the specific examples of YOUR stereotyping I have read on this forum...

PlanoFuji

It is a sad fact that remaining in poverty is in fact largely within the control of the individual. In may be unpopular, but it is a basic truth.

One specific example; having children. This is an extremely costly choice. One that if avoided (particularly by the very young) would significantly improve ones financial status.

Others are choosing a lack of education (or getting degrees in non-commercially viable choices), spending money on non-essentials (entertainment, status symbols, etc...

Virtually anyone who makes the sacrifices and commits to the basics can elevate themselves out of poverty--at least in the U.S. I grew up in. In fact prior to the deification of athletes and actors we used to have children's stories to teach how to do that. The genre was call Horatio Alger... Now those were useful myths.

charbucks

I think the main part of the poverty problem is in the image that people feel they're required to uphold. This has come up a bunch in relation to car ownership, but it applies to other areas of life as well.

I'm lucky: the only times I've been "poor" I've also been a student (then again, I've been a student for my entire adult life). For the first couple years of my post grad degrees, my stipend was $18k, and tuition (around $6k) came out of that. I never felt particularly poor though, as I didn't have an image to uphold - it was fine for me to take public transit (included in my tuition), shop at thrift stores, not own a car, etc, because I was a "poor student" and those things were expected.

If only low income people in the general population had the freedom from judgement that students are afforded, maybe they'd be able to save up and climb out of the hole.

PlanoFuji

I was born to an extremely poor family--we lived on the dole. In many ways this is why I was never hampered by the need/desire to keep up with the Jones' for my early life--it just wasn't possible. Even today, I have few of the outward trappings of wealth. Yes, some of my peers make judgements about that. So what.

Other peoples judgements aren't the problem.

wphamilton

I saw a surprising stat the other day about the number of Americans have lived at or near the poverty line at some point in their lives. 80% or something close to that. (found it) So, most of us having experienced it, I can see where the attitude comes from that they can just work themselves out of it. But on the other hand if it was that straightforward, just a matter or work or worth to stay out of the poorhouse, then how could it happen at some point to 80 percent of everybody? So I don't see it as a stigma and I lose all respect for those who do stigmatize low income. In other words I don't really care if people seeing me on a bike think I'm poor, or think that there's a 60% chance that I'm poor. That's their problem.

goldfinch

Citation needed. Your position is inconsistent with the evidence.

Class mobility in the US has declined significantly and there is less class mobility in the US than in many other countries. There are a number of citations in the wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-e..._United_States

Blaming the victim is the currently popular way to justify underpaying people who are working hard and denying them benefits that those of us who are lucky to be middle class or better take for granted.

I am the 1%. But I grew up poor in somewhat ugly circumstances. My mother was mentally ill, treated us like crap, and then died young. My father had significant health problems that interfered with him making a living and knowing what was going on with our mother. I know better than to take credit for my success like I am something special. Despite the bad things in my life I was born with smarts and have been driven my entire life to educate myself and succeed. It is my nature. I was lucky to have a father that valued education and helped me believe that I could succeed. I was lucky to grow up in times where there were plenty of ways to finance college even if your English was poor and you were not good at presenting yourself because you grew up in difficult circumstances. My peers and my siblings were not so lucky as me. I have friends from childhood who work hard at unpleasant jobs and who have no benefits whatsoever. They don't fill their houses with stuff. They are not frivolous.

I don't walk in their shoes, I only walk in my own. I cannot and will not presume that they could elevate themselves out of poverty.

Contrary to your position being unpopular, I think it is all too popular.

PlanoFuji

Perhaps, because many (if not most) folks, even those from well off families meet the definition of poverty when first starting out.

I agree it isn't a question of stigma or caring what others think. But by the same token, your own stat provides some evidence that poverty is at least partially caused by personal choices. And we are all ultimately responsible for (and judged by) our personal choices. I personally think this is most applicable when someone tries to blame others prejudice or discrimination for their personal situation...

Indeed, the cost savings that can be associated with the car free lifestyle is certainly one of the wiser choices for someone in a poverty condition--at least ignoring $2,000+ bikes and the N+1 syndrome. I was curious that no one seemed to focus on the other aspect of my original post; that roughly 25% of those who own a car are classified as poor...

wphamilton

Point of fact, it provides evidence that it's usually due to circumstance (primarily recessions and unemployment) and not due to personal choices.

PlanoFuji

I provided an excellent example of choices that lead to poverty. Having children is probably the biggest. There is no getting around that they are expensive. And a simple analysis of the US census will demonstrate that poorer households tend to have more children. And they have them younger (and less able to handle the financial responsibility) And no I am not going to offend Roody by going to the effort to find some report that summarizes that data for you.

And if you were poor, then you have personal knowledge of the unnecessary expenditures the poor in general make. Starting with alcohol. But also including non-essentials like TV, smart phones (or cell phones in general), etc... If you want a refresher take a drive through a poor neighbourhood the day or two after Christmas... Or when the tax refunds (a bit of a misnomer in this case) checks get delivered...

As I said, nearly anyone who is frugal and disciplined can achieve a great deal of relative wealth. Even those with low end jobs.

PlanoFuji

Recessions and unemployment do not place people in poverty who did not make poor choices; like not saving a portion of their income when they were working. Also, your citation doesn't actually provide evidence of your point anyway.

The US census data, prior to the late sixties demonstrates that the bulk of those below the poverty line were elderly. That was one of the purposes of the 'great society' and it largely succeeded. In part by shifting wealth from the young to the elderly through a ponzi scheme known as social security and medicare.

That is why since then, the majority of those below the poverty line are younger. As they age, they usually move into the working class stage (second income quartile)... There was a time that people understood that spending less than one's income and saving the difference was the key to moving to the third or even fourth quartile.

One of the best books ever published on practical information to move from poverty to wealth was called the "Wealthy Barber." Large incomes are not nescessary. Indeeed many of those currently in the third or fourth quartile are not really well off. They live pay check to paycheck, much like those on minimum wage. And that is purely a personal choice.

wphamilton

Kind of myopic to say that poor choices is what puts people in poverty. Obviously that can be the case, just as obviously the current recession and unemployment has had a hand in it.

I'm not really impressed by vague reference to Census numbers (especially wrong ones) - if you really want to make a point, show the facts.

https://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/12/povertyandincomeest/ib.shtml

64 and older have the lowest rates of poverty. Also citing data from a period where poverty dropped by half is not particularly informative. I suggest starting over, outlining the point you wish to make, and then using demonstrable facts to support it.