tclune

When I was raising a family, I opted for maximizing my income and commuting as far as necessary to do so. Once the kids got through college and I was able to retire, I have opted to dump my car (my wife still has hers, so we aren't really "car-free") and bike wherever I wanted to go. To do that, we needed to move to a more bike-friendly area. While we aren't living below the poverty line by any stretch, our income has been cut in half -- but so have our expenses, so it isn't exactly an economic hardship to choose this lifestyle. But my point is that choosing to drive wherever you need to or not may be more conditioned by other responsibilities in your life that you need to consider rather than just a question of your commitment to a mode of locomotion.

Roody

No you're not the only one. I said that pay is a low priority for me compared to job quality and life quality, including a short non-car commute. I think your game was a little too stringent and made it sound like the only choice is between deprivation and a long car commute. Many of us are carfree because it makes life more pleasant. I think your artificial scenario failed to account for us.

Machka 

It's doom and gloom all around in tandempower's world.

On the one hand you're trapped by the fact that you don't have the income to do anything with your life and you live in a less-than-desirable neighbourhood ... on the other hand you're trapped by long commutes and some sort of king that won't let you retire.

The choice was, I suppose, the best of two evils?



Fortunately, in the real world, there are so many better options. And all sorts of better ideas have been mentioned throughout this thread.

cooker

To try to condense your question, I think you are asking: if I had choose between a well-paid job that required driving in congested traffic, or low paid, part-time work that I could bike to, which would I prefer? The answer depends in part on attitude, but also in large part on circumstances. If someone has a family, or excess debts, or worries long-term about affording their retirement, they are quite naturally, I think, going to go for the money. If they're single and perhaps want to study or pursue a music or art career on the side or or they have a well-paid spouse or rich parents to back them up, or have some other priorities that make part-time work attractive for the time being, they might check box B.

Having said that, lots of us are going try to work around your dilemma - look for ways to get the best of both worlds - for example live in the driving side of town, but still try to live close to work for a shorter drive or even a bike or pedestrian commute.

tandempower

In principle, you'd be right EXCEPT people are often insincere and the reason they ask about my personal 'walking of the walk' is to shift the discussion to the level of what works for one person doesn't for another. I don't want to tell someone I bike for transportation only to hear them reply that everyone's different. Therefore I prefer to focus on the general benefits of transportation biking, like reducing motor-traffic, getting exercise, saving money, etc. It's not that I'm telling people they should bike like me. I'm just telling them that these problems people have and may or may not complain about are preventable. Dealing with motor congestion can be replaced by carfree commuting. Lack of exercise, the time and motivation for it, are resolved by transportation biking. Money problems are helped by foregoing auto expenses. I haven't even begun to mention the energy crisis and climate warming, sprawl, deforestation, etc. Whether or not me or any other individual does or doesn't 'walk the walk' is a distraction from the fact that walking the walk has positive effects. Basically what you're implying by asking whether I practice what I preach is that it's not actually possible to do so, but I can assure you from experience that I practice whatever I preach and when I run into hurdles, it is usually because somehow people are trying to make it more difficult when it's not. For example, free camping during multiday cycling travel makes biking a cheaper alternative to driving medium distances but if you can't camp for free on public land, it significantly increases the cost of traveling 100-200 miles over a couple days time. That is not a problem that's caused by physical limits but by social-economic ones. If truck drivers weren't allowed to sleep for free on multiday trips, shipping would be more expenses and less drivers would do it.

Light-after-dark use very little power. A 15W cfl lightbulb uses a tiny fraction of the energy used by air conditioning and heating. You should stop thinking in terms of what is and isn't good and think in terms of the number of KWH burned. Energy isn't free. It costs more than just money.

You are being hostile by probing for personal information. I'm going to ask you again to stop. What I will tell you is that the temperature in a well-insulated house that's shaded by trees rarely goes above the mid-80sF even when the outside temp is in the high 90s. It might go up to 90F. Fans are sufficient once you get used to the temp, as people were for all of human history before AC. Once you get addicted to low temps of AC, mid 80sF with a fan seems hot even though it's really not when you're used to it.

If no one paid to travel, no one could charge anyone else to travel. You would have to choose, either defend your region against all outside visitors or let them travel for free. Some of us could travel more if it was free and those of us who need to budget travel out of our budget when it costs money lose the opportunity to travel because of an economy that separates people into high and low income. I'm happy for you that you have good income but it saddens me that 'us poor folks' can't ride around on bikes and camp for free.

No, I'm only interested in sustainable low income/part time work. The idea is you make enough money to pay taxes and basic necessities and supplies and then use your time to make those supplies into products that would cost money otherwise. E.g. get an old property for cheap and make it livable with your own labor. That way, you get out of debt/rent and your low-income stretches further because you've reduced your cost of living. Biking fits into this because it takes more time to bike places but you save money by not having a car. So when you compare the options of having less time and more money to having more time and lower expenses, driving goes more with the first category and transportation biking with the second.

But of course it's nicer to make more money than less. It's just not always possible, especially if you want more free time. Sometimes you can make more money and have more time to bike and do other money-saving activities. In that case, you can do both and save up more money for the future, which is always good. I just feel bad for people who spend too much money because they don't realize they can save it by putting some extra effort into doing things for themselves. It's sad when people are so dependent on income. Recessions can be very harsh.

350htrr

I am not car free, but trying to be car light... Even 3 years ago I didn't think this way, a car was one of my "hobbies" and making it go faster was my goal... But I still chose a part time job my whole life not because I didn't need the money, but because I didn't want to be totally sucked into the rat-race. Luckily I made big money when I did work but if I wouldn't have then I guess I would have found a full time job somewhere instead of living like a poor person. My son is trying to do what you are saying but with 2 kids on the way I wonder how it will work out... ?

Roody

Well, with kids you certainly need some additional money for their care and schooling. But kids are not being abused just because they are expected to share in a simple lifestyle along with their families. From a fairly early age, my son was expected to help with carfree tasks as he was able, such as helping to carry groceries home from the store on foot or on his bike. At least he never had to wash the car or detail it like his young friends did! At 16, my grandson doesn't expect to be provided with the latest style of $200 sneakers. He is more than content with his good $40 sneakers, and they serve him well when he walks or rides his bike to school.

tandempower

Sorry, I had noticed your post about not choosing money over quality of life and I appreciated that sentiment. I think people are too quick to assume living carfree or otherwise going above and beyond to make low income stretch further makes life less pleasant. In my experience, middle-class hyperinderdependency is less pleasant than lower-class living. E.g. self-service fountain drinks are better than having to wait for a server to refill your drink. That's a small example but it is indicative of a general class difference where you are expected to do less for yourself and spend more on servants if you are middle-class. When you have more time to do things for yourself, it is more rewarding because you get to experience the fruits of your own labor more instead of putting all your energy into a job and then coming home to a pre-packaged lifestyle.

Biking for transportation is just one example of a low-cost activity that is rewarding precisely because you put your own energy and effort into it and reap the fruits of your own labor in the distance you travel.

It really isn't, Machka.

I don't see it as being trapped because I would have a guilty conscience living in a more exclusive area. I'm not a communist but I'm egalitarian in the sense that I believe all people are created equal and deserve equal respect and dignity. So it makes me feel uncomfortable to live around people who put themselves above others by living in a more expensive area. This is not to say I don't appreciate nice surroundings, but I have that where I live and, more importantly, the motor-traffic is worse on the richer side of town.

Not from my perspective because I'm not charmed by the spoils of the automotive economy. Part of the premise of the threat-challenge has to do with the economic strategy of minimizing demand elasticity as a stimulus for financial investment. In other words, if an area has inelastic demand for driving, that area is a better investment for job and wealth creation than an area where driving demand is more elastic. So, assuming automotive interests are self-preservation oriented enough to divest in more carfree areas, a class distinction could emerge between carfree areas and auto-inelastic areas so that only low income jobs are available where carfree living is a viable option. Then, logically, the areas where everyone flocks to make money by driving everywhere could get very crowded and be congested with drivers on the roads. So I was just wondering what people would opt for given a scenario where the economy is stratified into rich areas bustling with auto traffic and no carfree living and poor areas with plenty of carfree options but low paying jobs. That's all.

And I read them all with interest. But I would also find it interesting to hear if people have thoughts on what to do if a scenario emerges like the hypothetical one where auto-inelastic areas pay well and carfree areas pay poorly. Would you intervene using government in some way? If so, how? What if the auto-inelastic people are a majority, and their money controls the government and the economy? What else can you do then besides thank them for the low income jobs and the opportunity to live carfree instead of having to enter their rat race in the auto-inelastic areas?


Yes I really admire people who go ahead and live in the more auto-inelastic areas and try to live carfree anyway. They are the ones really in the trenches. I just live a low-pressure life on the poor side of town and count my blessings that I am able to live in the way my conscience most allows.


I agree with Roody's post about sharing the simple life of parents is good for children. If you've developed skills of living car free, isn't it good to integrate your children into the lifestyle you've achieved?

Ironic that carfree tasks were default chores for kids because that was how they got around. Now it's sounds like there's something exceptional for them to live carfree.

Bandera

Oddly enough housing, particularly low-income housing, in the S/SW of North America is no longer the sturdy adobe hacienda shaded by old growth trees where life is lived in a rhythm of siesta in the heat of the day.
Modern housing is designed for AC and without it becomes unsafe when the temps rise, as they do far beyond a mere "90F" and stay there for what we refer to as "Summer".

"Highs in Phoenix reached the low and mid-110s through much the week. Lows added to the effect of the heat with temperatures only dropping into the mid-upper 80s overnight within the urban areas;
The National Weather Service in Phoenix warns that those playing or working outdoors, as well as those without access to air conditioning, will face an elevated risk of heat-related illness."

"An excessive heat warning was in effect in Los Angeles and Ventura counties, as soaring triple-digit temperatures were once again predicted in the valley areas and at lower elevations in the mountains, according to the National Weather Service."

"Extreme heat waves cause the most harm among elderly people and young children. City dwellers are at particular risk because of elevated temperatures in cities, known as the "urban heat island effect" due to the magnifying effect of paved surfaces and the lack of tree cover."- NRDC

Once again reality intrudes on the fantasy in your scenario, or the NWS and NRDC are in on the plot too.......

-Bandera

Machka 

Tourism is a huge industry employing millions of people. I would not suggest or support the idea that no one charges to travel - no one pays to travel.

I may choke a bit at the price of airline tickets between Australia and Canada, but happily there are other areas where I can save some money now and then if I want ... such as cycling out of the airport and camping for free somewhere.

tandempower

This is why I advocate reforestation. Trees don't grow overnight, though, so some form of artificial shade over a roof could help lower the natural temp without AC, such as some kind of tarp. How hot does it get inside without AC and what is the relative humidity?

That does sound terribly hot. Again, however, what is the relative humidity? How many kwh/month does it take to cool a house there to 85F? Where AC/heating is necessary, insulating a sub-area of a dwelling/building as a small climate control zone can reduce energy consumption and cost.

Obviously there's no one-size-fits-all for conservation but the general premise is that people who don't care about conservation use more than they need to and end up with progressive tolerance levels and withdrawal symptoms as per the symptoms of any addiction. Someone who's not addicted to climate control is likely to adopt more energy-conservative climate control habits than someone who is unconcerned about addiction-effects and waste.

The west coast looks bad in the news. Droughts and fires are destroying natural tree shade, which is needed to cool temps and help retain the ground moisture needed for plants and forests to spread. I can only hope that people in that area will conserve as much energy and water as they can as a prayer for rain and cooler temps. If you're religious read the story of Jonah, especially the end where he sits outside the city waiting for it to be destroyed while, to his surprise, it isn't - even though the tree/plant shading him in the desert wilts away leaving him baking in the hot desert sun.

This is exactly what I have said in many posts on this forum. What fantasy are you talking about?

Well, it's always a tricky question of when business is the best medium for facilitating human activity and when free voluntary activity is better. This idea that anything that grows revenues and jobs is good is dangerous. While producing more money for the privileged, prices go up and freedoms turn into commodities for sale. This means reducing people more and more to servitude for the sake of buying things they could have had for free. If the world is controlled by high-income earners for high-income earners, exclusion gets free reign.

See, you know what poverty is because buying airline tickets leaves you poor too Seriously, though, it's hard to keep up with the global jet set. I've tried it and the better my economic analysis abilities got, the more I realized it wasn't a sustainable dream. Maybe if we got back to intercontinental sailing like in the 1600s, a larger population of people could travel between continents more, but of course that would require more free time, as does distance biking. Unfortunately, supply and demand means scarce things cost more. Making more abundant commodities lowers the price, but the challenge is figuring out modes of travel, etc. such as biking and sailing, that don't use any more resources than staying home does.

wolfchild

You are wrong !!...Just because somebody lives in a more expensive area doesn't mean that they are evil and put themselves above others.
If you want to live in a small shack or in a tent out in the woods then go ahead, but don't expect everybody to share the same ideas as you.
Never ever judge somebody just because they are wealthy, you have absolutely no idea what's in another persons heart or what they have been through or how hard they had to work to achieve what they have.

Blue Belly

how low/high? Low wages these days don't pay the bills, let alone a mortgage.

tandempower

I knew someone would accuse me of this. I don't prejudge people. I don't think everyone who lives in any area is a certain way. It's just a pattern that goes with affluence that you're more likely to deal with condescension, pretense, and judgement in more affluent areas. There are kind, humble people at all income levels and in all areas, however rich or poor, I believe. There are also irritating people in poor areas, albeit for slightly different reasons, but also for many of the same reasons. Nevertheless, I feel comfortable in the area where I live more than I would on the richer side of town, mainly because of the motor-traffic and price differences. I do have to admit they are building some really nice bike paths out there, though.

I am trying to figure out a way for economic elitism to be sustainable and non-detrimental toward other income levels. It's tricky. A lot of economic exploitation is built into income-disparities. I am by no means for equalizing incomes for the sake of 'shrinking the gap between rich and poor,' though. On the contrary, I prefer the pre-Keynesian model of let the rich keep their wealth and save and conserve for the general good while the poor also conserve to live within their means. This business of taxing the rich to boost the spending of the middle-class and poor so that there's more GDP for the rich to collect is bad for the environment and inflation.

I don't judge anyone. And I certainly don't assume my prejudices are correct before getting to know an individual. Nevertheless, sin is sin and you can't deny it. When the bible says it's harder for a rich man to get into heaven than for a camel to get through the eye of a needle, it isn't a class judgment but a statement of truth about worldly/material attachments that come with wealth that deter people from spiritual liberation. It's not saying spiritual ascent isn't possible with wealth; only that people have to be poor in spirit to experience humility and oneness with all living beings, rich and poor, human and non-human. How can we have humility as being part of the same creation/nature with everything else if we're fixated on distinguishing and separating ourselves into elite status groups and areas?

Maybe they could if someone has less bills and a more affordable property.

Blue Belly

Tats a wonderful idea but far from realistic.

Roody

100 years ago there was no AC. Very few people, relatively, lived in the hottest parts of the country. Those who did, designed their homes to cool naturally. They didn't live in apartment complexes or hermetically sealed McMansions. And they adapted lifestyle variations that helped them to adapt to the heat, such as siestas, sitting on the veranda, and staying up more at night and early morning.

Today, we're blessed with AC so we have adjusted our lives accordingly. Our settlement patterns, home designs and lifestyles have changed radically without us even thinking about it. We know nothing about living without AC, and we believe that AC is "necessary" for human lives. And the funny thing is, we've reached the point where it actually is necessary. To live without AC today requires thinking outside the box, and doing things differently than your neighbors do. So now, people judge that there is something wrong with people who choose to live without AC, as their ancestors did with comfort and ease. "Normal" people spend thousands of dollars on AC without even thinking about it, and are one of the major contributors to pollution and foreign energy dependence.

It's very similar with cars. 100 years ago it was normal and accepted to live without cars. Our streets, settlement patterns, and lifestyles were all adjusted to make carfree living the norm. But that gradually changed over the years, and nowadays people believe that cars are "necessary" for human life. And the funny thing, they actually are necessary for the type of life that we've unconsciously put in place for ourselves. As with AC, "normal" people are happy to spend thousands of dollars on machines that pollute and are dependent on foreign energy. People who choose to live without cars are judged by other people to be abnormal and eccentric.

I guess my point is that we change our lives abruptly to take advantage of amazing new technology such as AC and cars. The problem is, we then start to think that the new technology is "necessary" rather than just a pleasant luxury. This is all unconscious and unplanned, but it's still a very powerful force throughout history. It's the darker side of that shiny new tech glamor.

Bandera

Your original totally un-realistic scenario to start:

Also:

Multi story Tarps designed to meet Florida's Hurricane resistant building codes to "lower the natural temp" ?
Really? Fantasy.

As Sponge Bob Square Pants once said:

"Well, Good luck with that!"


-Bandera

Roody

What is? Which of the 89 posts on this thread are you referring to?

(Use of the quote function can eliminate a lot of communication failures.)

Blue Belly

"less bills, more affordable property"

low paying jobs don't pay mortgages.

tandempower

Rooftop solar panels would be better, because they would also generate electricity, but a tarp can also work. I would stretch the tarp a few inches above the roof so the sunlight isn't penetrating directly through it and heating up the roof anyway. A small amount of air-space between the tarp and roof could allow much heat to dissipate and keep the attic cooler. The obvious problem with this scenario is that tarps break down in the sun, but sunshades are used in parks, etc. where tree shade is lacking.

Negativity is just such a waste of communication. If all you have to say is something cynically negative, why not just hold your tongue and leave discussion for those with something constructive to add?

They pay for small parcels of land and used RVs to live in while building something more permanent. The main problem is taxes and impact fees, which are necessary when you consider how irresponsibly most people would live if they could move onto a property for a couple thousand dollars. Most of the economy is devoted to maintaining high prices to keep neighborhoods exclusive and keep people working at paid employment instead of retiring. If people would just learn to behave civilly, there would not be as much need for social control camouflaged as economic activity.

Roody

A mortgage can be cheaper than rent. Around here there are programs that help low income people with down payments and getting better loan conditions. (I realize that many poor people are in a bind that makes it difficult or impossible to get loans because of work history, defaults, etc.)

Blue Belly

100%!!!

Blue Belly

Isn't that scary! Yes, mortgages aren't cheap, neither are taxes, food, clothes, etc etc etc

Bandera

Rather than mentally huddling under imaginary uber-tarps those who are interested in Actual Energy Saving roofing designs refer to:

" ENERGY STAR Certified Roof Products

Although there are inherent benefits in the use of reflective roofing, before selecting a roofing product based on expected energy savings consumers should explore the expected calculated results that can be found on the Department of Energy's "Roof Savings Calculator" website at Roof Savings Calculator (RSC) - DOE ORNL LBNL CEC EPA. Please remember the Energy Savings that can be achieved with reflective roofing is highly dependent on facility design, insulation used, climatic conditions, building location, and building envelope efficiency. "

Constructive information from your Department of Energy, no fantasy required.

Roody

It's informative that they talk about these roofs "saving energy" on the AC bills rather than keeping the house cooler. I think that further illustrates the unconscious dependence we have on AC. I only bring this up because it so neatly parallels our unconscious dependence on cars. With both, we have come to believe that we can't live without them, when actually we have deliberately (but unconsciously) set up our lives in a way that artificially makes them indispensable.

Personally, I love AC--but I can certainly live comfortably without it in my local climate conditions.