rhm

https://www.census.gov/hhes/commuting...014/acs-32.pdf

There was a segment about this on Here and Now today, but this segment did not make it to the web page.

Roody

Very interesting report, thanks for posting!

The changes are modest, but after decades of continuing growth, the trend does now seem downward, especially for younger workers.

cooker

Interesting. From the graph it looks like the number of solo drivers is stable, but even there, it could partly be that some solo drivers have switched to other modes, while some former car-pool drivers have lost their passengers and become solo. So that flat line doesn't necessarily buck the trend.

Roody

Yes, especially considering that the trend for more than 100 years was that the number of drivers kept going up while pretty much everything else has gone down. Now the number of drivers is stable or declining slightly, especially in urban areas and among younger workers. The number of non-drivers is going up in every category except car pooling.

What happened to car pooling? Why has it gone down so much? Is there less government support for it? Is it considered uncool? Was it just not working for people? Were there too many quibbles about word definitions that ruined the car pool experience?

tandempower

Interesting that driving alone was reported at @20% for "how workers with no access to a vehicle get to work," in Table 7 on page 18. How is it possible to drive alone to work if you have no access to a vehicle?

Maybe the factors that stimulated carpooling are now prompting people to choose other means, such as transit and biking, because those are better options now than they used to be for various reasons. Maybe stigmas attached to taking the bus or biking deterred people in past decades less than they do now.

E.g.
A: "please give me a ride to work b/c I don't want to take the bus (or ride my bike)
B1980: "Ok, I wouldn't want you to have to take the bus or ride a bike; that would be awful"
B2013: "Why don't you just take the bus or ride your bike?"

There are probably many other factors, such as gas prices and maybe a broader diversity of potential travel routes that make it harder to coordinate carpooling. It's a good question that could involve many factors.

I think the biggest factor lies in the broad population of people who just drive alone. It's not like people who prefer to drive alone are suddenly going to take up the slack of carpooling just because others who once carpooled shifted to other modes.

I'm surprised ride-sharing services haven't increased the rate of carpooling, though maybe that trend started after this survey data was collected.

Dave Cutter

Big surprise the nation gets poorer.... fewer people drive, or drive fewer miles. Other stats for poorer nations are also pretty bleak. This is very sad news... in brightly colored wrapping paper.

tandempower

Poverty is to some degree a question of values. If you value things beyond their dollar value or cost, people can get wealthier while GDP drops. Not everything has to be monetized to have value.

The US gets richer for every dollar it saves by driving less, imo. Driving has a long history of diminishing marginal utility.

Dave Cutter

Words.... cheap valueless words. Poverty is a word with a definition: https://www.google.com/#q=define+poverty

cooker

You drive less than you used to - so does Mobile 155. Why don't you think others might be doing the same, for the same reasons?


Plus wouldn't harder economic circumstances lead to more carpooling? Also, this specifically refers to driving to work, not elective driving.

tandempower

Low income goes a lot further when you appreciate the value of your own cooking, ride and maintain a bike instead of fueling, maintaining, and insuring a car, and maintain your own house or trailer/rv instead of renting. There are lots of ways to save money and live well on low income. "Poverty" implies that people have to live badly because they have less money to spend. That's just not true in all cases.

Walter S

Poverty is not just about money. If you have a strong support network and material assets such as a house with a kitchen and cooking hardware and furniture and no house note and inexpensive property taxes and just enough money then you need not live in poverty. The same income and a house that's NOT paid for and making weekly furniture payments and a high interest mortgage and a family to raise - you're poor.

Edit: actually I see definitions that discuss other than money - but the primary definition is all about money, and not even need. Poverty | Definition of poverty by Merriam-Webster

So you may be perfectly happy with your situation but be living in poverty because you're not the norm.

tandempower

Norms shouldn't be the issue. Establishing a minimum standard of material consumption/necessity should. D Cutter said that fewer people driving and/or people driving fewer miles constitutes an impoverishment of 'the nation.' I disagree. On the contrary, having to drive more to pay more bills because people have more trouble satisfying their needs is the real poverty.

It's like thinking your health is better because you take more expensive medicines than other people. In reality, the person who takes no medicines and spends little to nothing on health care because they are naturally healthy or healthy by way of inexpensive lifestyle choices like exercise and good diet actually has better health.

You can't equate money with prosperity. Poverty is a misleading term because it equates well-being with money. More money is a means of pursuing well-being when you can't find happiness with less. An economy with a large low-income population who have broad means to live well with little spending is a much more prosperous society than one where people have more income but less ability to live well.

Mobile 155

Tandempower:
It sounds like you are saying pushing for a higher minimum wage is a waste of time? People should learn to be satisfied with what they have?

wahoonc

The definition of poverty is a moving target. I look back at what some people had a few generations back compared with what is considered poverty today and there is no comparison.

Aaron

Dave Cutter

Well you have a point! I retired early as have many of my contemporary's. I was very fortunate as mine was a result of many years of planning. However many of my friends... were NOT as lucky. Proving again that poverty is a word with a definition.

I-Like-To-Bike

Sounds to me that the message is that people should be satisfied with a lot less. In fact, should be satisfied with living the life of an ascetic philosopher wandering from place to place by bicycle or foot, camping out at night, dependent on the kindness of strangers to provide sustenance.

Dave Cutter

No... "poverty" means that the impoverished live inferiorly... or at risk.

The definition remains true. I think you might be confusing feelings.. with facts. Just because someone is impoverished and/or at risk doesn't mean they will necessarily feel the situation as being harmful. Particularly when the poverty is under a religious circumstance... as in "vow of poverty" (see the definition).

I know that most environmentalist have deep religious beliefs about resource use! For most... environmentalism is a religion.

tandempower

Raising minimum wage stimulates inflation, which increases real poverty. The only thing that reduces real poverty is increasing the ratio of spending to value-creation; i.e. deflation. If you make a certain income, minimum wage or otherwise, and you are able to reduce your cost of living by moving to a more affordable home, or shopping at cheaper stores, riding a bike instead of driving, or otherwise substituting lower costs for higher ones, you are reducing your real poverty. If across-the-board wage increases stimulate inflation, prices go up and everyone loses.

No, people should expect more from what they have. People should have free access to natural resources when they use them responsibly. There is a sustainable way to live on this planet and, unfortunately, by modern standards it's considered 'poverty,' when in reality it is prosperity.

People can live inferiorly while spending a lot of money. People can live inferiorly by drowning themselves in debt and bills. People can live inferiorly by making unwise use of their money and efforts.

You don't have to be religious to suffer from diminishing marginal utility. Poverty/prosperity has to do with the amount of value you get out of things, not how much you spend creating that value. Is a table handmade from self-harvested wood for free any less valuable than one purchased at a high price? Value is created, not bought. People who suffer from poverty do so because they invest too much money in the wrong things and not enough effort in creating more value from what they can afford.

Protecting natural resources is not an arbitrary prerogative. Until you can produce a limitless supply of resources you claim are abundant, stop telling others that limiting waste is a matter of personal religion.

TheManShow

Kind of makes you wonder why Warren Buffett recently bought a large car dealership group. WDWK (what does warren know?)

Dave Cutter

No. Only in YOUR mind can that happen. YOU are trying to assign definitions... where defined situations already exist.

Yeah.... that sounds lovely... I have no idea what it means. Thank God... at least in this country we have a free market society that has created an abundance of wealth. There is plenty for all.

But it's true! Humans are simple mammals. If any has ever generated a resource... I am unaware of that history!

But humans are a quickly developing species and are aware of the limitless amounts of resources the universe has to offer. Although today humans still live at the every edge of primitive. With many humans still worshiping the Sun, wind, water.... and other natural resources. Yet many other humans see the potential of science and technology. Advancement as a people will require humans to set aside their natural fears of the unknown and accept the solutions that modern life has to offer. It's all good!

There is always the Flatula Backfire (fart car):
https://youtu.be/vUKolh8Q9hA

bluegoatwoods

Naaah........That really would be living an impoverished lifestyle.

But people actually can be happy with less than modern society seems to regard as necessary. And the youngsters, perhaps, are getting more convinced of this. Hence, some shedding of the automobile. I guess I don't regard this as proven. But it seems plausible.

But maybe the youngsters are coming to see that our roads really are overwhelmed with cars. It's been noticeable to me in my 'driving lifetime'. That started in the mid-1970s. And it's obvious to me that traffic has gotten worse everywhere.

I've been wondering when this would become obvious to others. Maybe it's starting to happen.

Mobile 155

Bluegiatwoods: but they are also staying home with the "Rents" much longer and staying out of the workforce much longer as well.

The number of unemployed youth was 2.8 million in July 2015, down from 3.4 million a
year earlier. The youth unemployment rate was 12.2 percent in July 2015, 2.1 percentage
points less than a year before. Among the major demographic groups, July unemployment
rates were lower than the prior year for young men (12.7 percent), women (11.7 percent),
whites (10.3 percent), blacks (20.7 percent), and Hispanics (12.7 percent). The youth
jobless rate changed little for Asians (10.7 percent). (See table 2.)

Could that have anything to a decline in any need for transportation?

Unless we accept the idea they don't need to work if they can life a happy free life off of others?

cooker

If it's bad now, where will they get jobs when all the cars etc. are self driving?

Dave Cutter

What? This makes no sense! Happiness is an emotion. Prosperity is a state of being... maybe even a measurable amount (or lack of) wealth. The two are NOT in anyway related to each other. I would certainly hope "the youngsters" as well as every adult can understand the difference.

The amount of money I have in my wallet cannot be determined by the cheeriness of my smile. I have to actually perform the simple math of counting my money to determine it's volume. AND.... there is NO known measurement for self-satisfaction, joy, happiness, or pleasure.

Acts 16:25 About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the other prisoners were listening to them.

Dave Cutter

Before fishing nets were invented.... it is presumed that entire villages would be required to gather a days worth of protein for everyone. After boats and nets were invented/developed/used... only a couple workers would gather enough fish for everyone.

The greater our technology advancements.... the smaller the workforce is needed. As technologies advance and greater training and skills are required... fewer people have the actual abilities to acquire the needed skills.

None of this is new. But we progressively approach a breaking point.