A Cyclist - is a disaster for the economy
 

A fellow named Kaushik Patel posted this on LinkedIn:

A Cyclist - is a disaster for the economy:

1. He does not buy the car and does not take a car loan.
2. Does not buy vehicle insurance.
3. Does not buy fuel.
4. Does not use the services of repair shops and car washes.
5. Does not use paid parking.
6. Does not become obese.
7. Yes, and well, dammit ! Healthy people are not needed for the economy. They do not buy drugs. They do not go to private doctors. They do not increase the country's GDP ! On the contrary, every new McDonald's outlet creates 30 jobs: 10 Dentists, 10 Cardiologists and 10 Weight Loss Experts.

So, what do you prefer- Cycling or fast food?

I thought it was amusing. But when you think about it, bikes became very popular before cars. Cars were viewed as a natural progression (its sure easier going up a hill by burning long-dead dinosaur carbon than by metabolizing this morning's bagel). This progress drove industrialization, higher productivity, and so forth. Folks giving up cars and using bikes do indeed threaten the car companies.

Still lives in a house, rents or buys on mortgage, Pays for utilities puts purchases on a credit card.
cell phones GPS computers TVs , Eats , drinks .. wears clothes buys shoes..

You're forgetting...

75% of Americans do not have a savings account and are living paycheck-to-paycheck. Most Americans are up to their eyeballs in CC/car-loan/mortgage debt too.

By not needing to waste money on the list of garbage up there, a car-light/free cyclist suddenly finds a wealth of disposable income to spend on consumer goods that goes back into the GDP/economy. Shoot, by simply not needing to park a car I have $2500USD/year in cash I can spend on other goods than parking.

I'd suggest that any shift from one technology to another DOES threaten the former technology. I'm thinking in terms of the stories related in "The Innovator's Dilemma". But its clear you think I'm missing something. Splain.

BTW, does your avatar pic really relate what it looks like? The boot is on top of the bike handlebar. So the sign says "No riding bicycles here when you have someone standing on your handlebar"?

You realise this is how all insurance...for anything.... everywhere... at all times...since forever... works...right?

Most adult cyclists also still own and/or use motor vehicles when doing so suits their purposes.

Americans humans consume more of the planet's resources than any other creature.

Very overdue for a diet.

I would be a wonderful thing if it were true, but new bike sales have been falling for the past 15 years, while new auto sales have been climbing for 7 straight years. I don't necessarily notice more cyclists on the road compared to a few years ago, but I do notice that here in Southern California at least, seeing a car over 15 years old is like seeing a unicorn.

No, typically insurance premiums vary considerably by an individual's risk factors. There's a whole field devoted to calculating this risk, called Actuarial Science.

Indeed...which is why with car insurance, if you're a single male below the age of 25.....your auto insurance rate will probably plummet by 50% when you turn 26. Even if you never had a traffic citation.

It isn't a shocking upending of the universe that young people get shafted and pay more.


The "safe" or "low-risk" people ALWAYS "subsidize" those with high-risk and the tendency to need pay-outs. That is how insurance works. Regardless of the premium structure, that is how insurance is offered-and the insurance companies make money.

No, that is how mandatory insurance works. In markets where insurance coverage isn't mandatory under penalty of law, the insurance companies must actually charge high risk individuals what it costs to cover their estimated claims, and low-risk individuals can usually purchase coverage for a song. An example would be life insurance.

Every penny "earned" of every citizen regardless of what toys you own is just just as much a benefit to the economy because those pennies will go to someone else very quickly.

And in before the move to that dark place down at the bottom of the list!

You saw through the smoke and came up with the correct answer.

yes, and Insurance Rates are set according to Actuarial Tables, .... which calculate how much to charge the people who will not need any insurance coverage from their policy, to pay for the people who need more coverage than their premiums pay for.

You know some big words but don't grasp the simple concepts.

This is a comic topic suitable for The Onion.

The best thing Americans can do to pump up the GDP is drive their cars into expensive buildings full of expensive products and blow them up. The clean-up, repair, and replacement costs all pump up the GDP. The fact that tons of stuff are being wasted means nothing to economists, so long as the "right" numbers get bigger. Hurricane Katrina was one of the best things to happen to the U.S. GDP.

Anyone who cannot see some flaw with an arbitrary economic system which favors waste and destruction and sees efficiency and lowered unnecessary consumption as a bad thing .... You'd almost think numbers like the GDP are calculated with no eye to the long-term future, and the fact that All resources are finite.

****.

Have you ever actually looked at actuarial charts?

As someone already mentioned, most cyclists also own cars so numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4 are usually not true.

And I also read somewhere that the calories burned cycling cost more in food to replace than gas for a "normal" car (I dunno, 25+ mpg??).

Gentlemen! Ladies! I posted this because I thought it was an amusing divertissement. I guess I should have realized that folks would take it too seriously. Sorry. But lighten up.

Also, this seemed to have spawned a digression between those who see the world in terms of Fidel Che Bin Laden Obama, and Adolf Benito Trump. I can't (won't) get into that except to say that after many years of being strongly political I've evolved to a new attitude that saves me a lot of time, a lot of worry, and is almost 100% reliable. Instead of trusting and liking one side, and doubting and hating the other, I now distrust and dislike both sides.

You'd be amazed at the time this saves.

You do realize that insurance companies make profits, right?

If they assigned rates strictly according to actuarial charts, they would break even. They make their money by knowing, statistically, who will need how much care, and calculating how much to charge each person for each policy (also including what the salesman can sell.) But they assume that most people will pay money and never take it back out, or never take out as much as they pay ... they don't sell policies as cheap as possible, they sell policies for as Much as possible. They decide how much they can overcharge the people who won't need as much to build up the profit pool to handle the occasional catastrophe.

Recall how many insurance companies went bankrupt in Florida dn the Gulf states after a few years of really bad hurricanes? Why? because actuarial tables are statistical. Because rates have to match what the market can bear.

Insurance companies charge as much as they can .... all they have to do is being about the same as the competition, and while I doubt there is actual collusion, over time the firms have figured out what they can get away with charging.

yeah, you can get Cheaper insurance if you are younger, fitter, live a certain lifestyle ... but you are still paying into the overall profit pool beyond what insurance companies think you will take out later.

There is no way they could charge enough to cover the really expensive cases ... no one could afford insurance if every one of us had to pay in premiums, what it cost for the person run over by a car, or having a heart attack. And the companies cannot predict precisely how many people will need catastrophic coverage down to the dollar per day ... So ... the healthier people have to contribute to help the people who will eventually need more in care than they could ever pay out in premiums.

It's a business, after all.

No worries, China is getting ready to pass USA soon enough.

Meh.

Yes, the economy changes as purchases change. Yes, the overall impact of a car-based culture on the transportation and infrastructure aspects of the economy will far exceed the overall impact of a bicycle-based culture on those things. Yes, taken as a whole, the additional benefits of a heavily bike-oriented transportation culture are huge. And I'm sure some economists, out there, have taken a stab at valuing the overall. Health, clothing, fuel, transportation infrastructure requirements, time commitments (as going the same distance on a bike can take longer [depending] as compared to a motorized vehicle) ... etc.

Can't say that anyone's "threatened" by such changes. Though many areas of industries will certainly need to accommodate such changes as buying preferences change.


I'd personally love to see a third to half of all "major corridor" streets in the average town and city torn up and retrofit with bicycle/walking-friendly alternatives. Whether that be MUPs integrated, merely widening and adding great bike lanes, or something beyond that. In many higher-growth cities such planning is already being incorporated into new street infrastructure that's being installed.

The guy who wrote that list lives in a fantasy world.


-Tim-

Chapeau to the Mods! They are obviously out riding their bikes right now. :-)

Most (actually, all) of my cycling friends own and drive cars! Even without a vehicle, the cost of food, medical care, and education is rising more quickly than wages. Personally, I avoided rent inflation by getting a mortgage.

****. Or P&R?