Less important, or less affordable? If you know you'll never be able to afford something, eventually you find ways to work around it in your head.
Sounds good. But how do we know whether it's due to them being younger currently or a generational difference? Maybe in 16.5 years Gen Z will reach the same levels the Millenials currently show.
It all depends on where you live. Where was the survey done?
I agree. I had to terminate an employee that relied on Uber. As much it's a shitty move, my company doesn't fuck around when it comes to attendance. If you are over 10 minutes late multiple times you get fired.
Now it's usually pretty easy for me to be on time and we pay really well. So it's worth it. But not having reliable transportation directly affected his attendance. Is that because we live in an area that is dense and getting an Uber can take a bit at times? Is it any better in the country? Was there anything else he could have done to make it easier?
Maybe. But ultimately it came down to him not being dependable.
Exactly. I don't know how the statistics had been done, but at least where I live, I really need to drive given how bad the public transport is. And I live in a city!
Owning a car is less important to younger people.
That’s an important distinction. Unless these generations were all queried at the same age, that is.
Good question. It's possible all this poll is showing is that old people aren't physically as able to use other methods.
Am I the only one annoyed at the graph being backwards? The past goes on the left, the present on the right.
Not if you look at it by age number smallest to largest
yeah but that's not the message you want to convey. if you're talking about difference in generations, you're essentially talking about change through time. so the x axis should represent time from past to present. therefore you should do it by age from highest to lowest.
Why would we do that when it's categorized by age group?
No, you are not alone. It makes it harder to read.
Many of us don't have the desire or ability to cough up $50,000+ for a badly made piece of shit that does nothing but violate our privacy and contributes to everything we hate about our cities.
This seems disingenuous. Privacy concerns are valid, but you can get a new car (Ford Maverick) for $25k. The hybrid powertrain would only be $1k more, for an ~40% reduction in fuel consumption
Yea I agree $40k is a bit disingenuous. But the cost of a car is more than the car itself. It's better to view it as a ongoing expense of fuel, insurance, maintenance, etc. AAA estimates between 7-10k a year. https://www.aaa.com/autorepair/articles/average-annual-cost-of-new-vehicle-ownership
For the business types, this is called total cost of ownership.
Between depreciation of resale value, the costs for fuel, maintenance, storage, insurance, etc. The actual cost of owning a car is significantly higher than what it says on the sticker.
I'm not a business type, but I took classes about it in college and some of the stuff I read was specifically saying that vehicles were easily one of the biggest cost sinks out of everything you will ever own. Aka, they have the most significant unrecoverable costs associated with them.
If you think about it for even a few seconds, that's absolutely true, the vehicle loses a large portion of its value simply by being used at all. The fuel doesn't add value to the investment, the maintenance doesn't either. With another large investment, such as a house/real estate, if you do upgrades/maintenance/whatever to the property, the value of the house generally increases, the property generally doesn't lose value over time, though it's widely considered one of the worst types of investments to hold property for capital gains in the value of the property, it's at least moving in the right direction. Install/repair the HVAC in a car, bfd. No significant change in value. Repair/upgrade the HVAC in a house, you can recover most of that cost if you need to sell the house.
Vehicles suck.
I wouldn't own one except that I live in the middle of fucking nowhere. We neither have bus, train, nor taxi service where I live, and the Uber/Lyft/whatever ride apps might as well laugh in my face when I load them.
If you live anywhere with a functional transit system, buying a car is generally a bad move, financially.
Probably the only cost I would consider worse than a car is renting a place to live, unfortunately, many don't have the choice of owning their living space, and since everyone needs somewhere to call home, you don't really have a choice. With a vehicle, you don't have to own one, as long as you live somewhere with alternatives available.
I disagree. In my experience with the younger folk, it's almost always an issue that driving is way too expensive for what you get.
You can do almost everything that would've necessitated owning a car on the internet now, and the cost of your car payment, insurance and registration, and gas is just way too high for the things that still require it. It's cheaper to just pay a taxi or find someone to give you a ride for the few times you actually need it.
Maverick is not a car, it's a two-ton truck that uses 3.8gal/100 MI. Also, there's insurance and maintenance to worry about.
You can't get a maverick for 25k now and never have. It also goes up in price for the 25 model year and spans comfortably into the 40k range pre markup.
Plus taxes and registration, which can easily add an extra 10-15% to the cost in many places.
Unlike a couple decsdes ago, the second hand market doesn't really save that much either.
Also, why tf does it even need to be new?
That’s come outta nowhere.
When used prices are not significantly lower, it is hard to make that choice over new with a manufacuturer's warranty.
Used prices are ridiculous now.
Do younger generations also more commonly live in urban areas? Because I can't imagine living where I do without a car. Nothing is within walking distance and if you want to go to another town, you have 1 chance a day to take the bus.
I certainly don't want to have to have a car, but I do have to have one. :/
This is 100% my question. I am assuming to polling was specifically done in an urban environment where there is some public transportation. It makes sense that you'd still have a lot of folks that would still want a car. If this was a more rural poll or would have to be like 99% car.
Following that assumption. The older demographics likely have family/grandchildren or some vacation home outside of the city. There are just too many variables to make this useful.
the gap doesn't seem massive, couldn't this just be importance of owning a car by "stage of life?" obviously people with kids, jobs, no knees etc... need cars more than uni students.
Honestly geography seems to be the most important factor, rather than generation.
This. I'm one of those older millennials... Over 40. I wouldn't have a car if I didn't live in the middle of nowhere.
The past few years I've mainly been working from home, so during that time, the only reason I still had a car is that I had already bought it. I still work from home, and if my car stops working, I'll be hard pressed to find a reason to buy a replacement. The only good reason I have is for work, since I occasionally need to travel to a place for my job. And honestly, that's the only valid reason I have right now to continue owning one.
Is it really the geography, or is it availability/proximity to public transit?
Both are the same answer. I live in a place where you can't live without access to a car.
You have said much better what I was lazily leaving to inference. Yes, it is access to public transit.
Or, just affordability?
Things just cost a lot more nowadays, and if you're young it's unlikely you're earning much. Hell, it's also possible that their parents missed the boat on salaries rivalling house prices.
I'd love to not have a car, but there's not a train that runs to the slopes and the busses cost more than twice as much as the gas to get there.
Ideally busses would be cheaper/subsidized, but driving for recreation is valid. Carpool if you can.
tons of reasons not to have a car. affordability, spying, anti-right to repair, gas cost based entirely on fuck you, electrics only come in huge and 5 years of income, designers have no aesthetic sense, elon exists at all, etc.
I don't know why anyone wants a car. I have one because I might have to for work and generally my wife needs to for her medical issues. I sure don't want one though. I would say its important though. I live in a transit friendly city but not having one is still limiting unfortunately. The ideal thing if you have to have a car is for it to be mostly parked at home.
Is it not at all age related as well? When I was 20 and in college I didn't need a car at all. But now working and living in the Midwest a car is much more necessary.
It's worse than that. The age range literally includes 12 year olds.
I wonder where the results of this research come from.
Even with a size of 10,000+ people, I would definitely like to see the information on where they live, because that is a massive factor.
I live in a place with ok (not great but not horrible) public transportation. Problem is, it's way cheaper for me to drive to work than to take public transportation.
It costs me 4$ a week in fuel to drive to work. A monthly transit pass is more than 100$. Even with an honored citizen pass which is just under 30$, it's still cheaper for me to drive to work.
This doesn't include other costs from driving obviously in which it would be overall cheaper to take public transit, however it's overly time consuming just to get to a local store and back home due to a lack of better transit. It would take me almost an hour one way just to go 3 miles to the local grocery store.
I'm not saying cars are better by any means, but the necessity is very much dependent on where people live, so the data could be skewed simply by that factor alone.
I lived in mainland Japan for a while, the public transit system is amazing. What also helps is that there are smaller local places where you can simply walk to in order to get groceries or other necessities.
I wish the US wasn't stuck in this capitalistic nightmare and just started heavily investing in public transit. Then, in places where transit is fully functional (and reasonable), start pushing an occasional non driving day, with free or reduced fare transit. Anything to slowly integrate public transit systems into people's daily lives so it isn't seen as some lower tier form of transport or a hunge inconvenience.
It costs me 4$ a week in fuel to drive to work. A monthly transit pass is more than 100$. Even with an honored citizen pass which is just under 30$, it’s still cheaper for me to drive to work.
You are committing a mortal sin of personal finance - equating vehicle cost with gas cost. It is this precise mistake that results in countless American families literally driving themselves into poverty. The cost of gas is only a small fraction of the per-mile cost to operate a vehicle. This is one of the single biggest mistakes people mistake when assessing their personal finances, deciding on how far to live from work, deciding whether to drive or fly for a trip, etc.
All of the costs of vehicle ownership scale with mileage. Cars depreciate faster the more you drive them. The more you drive, the greater the chance of an accident and a resultingly higher insurance premium. Every mile you drive means more maintenance and burns through ever-more of your car's finite lifespan. Gas is the only one of these you feel so directly, but ALL of the costs of operating a vehicle scale with mileage.
It is difficult to calculate the true total cost of vehicle ownership, but a good approximation is the IRS mileage rate, which is 67 cents per mile. This is the IRS's best figuring of the average cost to operate a vehicle, averaged across the US vehicle fleet. Obviously it will be higher or lower depending on the precise vehicle you drive, how reckless a driver you are, etc.
But let's be generous and assume an average mpg efficiency of 35 mpg. If gas costs $3.50/gallon, then gas costs you about 10 cents per mile. Averaged across the US vehicle fleet, gas costs less 20% of the actual cost of operating a vehicle. A car is a big expensive asset that you burn through just like you burn through gas. Every mile you drive a vehicle gets it one mile closer to the junkyard.
This is what creates the illusion of driving being cheaper than it actually is. I mean, just think about it from first principles. A bigger vehicle like a train or bus is obviously going to be a hell of a lot cheaper to move a person the same distance. It's simple economies of scale. When you buy a transit pass, you are paying for your share of the full cost of operating a bus or train, not just the fuel cost.
If you want to calculate the true cost of operating a vehicle, a rough method is to take what you spend on gas and multiply by 5. That's a lot closer to your true cost per mile of owning and operating a vehicle.
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
