Fuel Economy, Hypermiling, EcoModding News and Forum - EcoModder.com - View Single Post

slowmover · 10-25-2013, 09:10 AM

Let's see . . this country has not created a single "family wage" job since 1999, student debt loan is astronomical . . and the AHCA will drain another $3k annually from a 20-something . . money he doesn't have.

Yet, if someone needs a car they'll find a way (as distinct from wants). Much of my skill was self-taught (reading factory service manuals), but it was the decision to buy the tools which made the difference in keeping transportation costs low. It may have been someone around here who made the comment, and it is apt, that the tool is 90% and learning to use it well is 10%. Doing the grunt work and hiring out the specialized, skilled work hours to near-minimum was a good approach. But this approach also meant housing that could/would accommodate working on the car on the premises. And foregoing a social life of any note for weeks at a time.

I lived (and now live) in cities where public transportation is fair to poor (times versus distances) and ever-present heat make it highly unattractive. These have been metro areas predicated on automobile ownership where one is unlikely to find decent employment without a car. So sacrifices to that end [future orientation] paid off. The current vehicle was paid for in cash, used. Smart Spec and Smart Use have kept CPM as well as annual costs to a minimum.

To have a social life -- to put myself back into 20-something shoes -- among those one might wish to marry in a post WWII city it would seem that a car is still mandatory. Better to have the options open, in other words.

I do wonder if the "I can't have the car I want" syndrome is not simply being intimidated by learning to maintain and repair (plus associated costs), but in not going the next step, aesthetically, and cleaning said car to the toothbrush-in-the-crevices level. As my Depression-era childhood Dad would have said, old clothing that is repaired, cleaned and pressed brings no shame to the wearer. The time to buff out faded paint and to do the cheap, but worthwhile changes (new carpet, headliner and seatcovers) is the sort of thing that causes it all to be too much, emotionally, to those who believe that there is nothing in life lasting more than twenty-minutes that cannot be interrupted by yet another cretinous tweet, twitter or twaddle. (And they are. All of them. Same for tattos. Hilarious that some believe that there is "good" and "bad" therein. Same for t-shirts worn in public. Etc. Ad infinitum).

On the other hand, extending childhood to age 25 seems to me to be the answer to the question of why the younger don't want to drive (so much). Yes, expensive. Yes, time-consuming . . but where are the jobs (not McJobs) geographically, and where is the place (more in the heart, if not the head) to which I'm going? A rudderless ship will have no crew.

Human evolution it is said, is diverging along two pathways. The very few who will wait to marry and establish a household once a career is underway (now usually in jobs protected from competition), and the four-fifths of Americans for whom a two parent family is a luxury not seemingly affordable are on separate pathways. Multi-generational households with a family car makes more sense. The poor have to reproduce sooner so that both the youhg adults can be employed full-time, and their parents still young enough to raise the youngest before the early death attendant on the worse occupations and shorter lifespans arising from poor health. 18 versus 28, for first children . . . after all, the entire meaning of human life is to reproduce. Nothing else comes close. And a car was once a way to have privacy [sex] that is no longer so necessary. Five-generations per century is quite different than three, folks.

Cars are like kitchens: elevated out of proportion to their importance. The garage should take just as much money to finish out as the kitchen, and maybe more, as it is not solely a place of consumption (and some income offsetting), but is possibly income-producing. If both are seen as "shops" (manufactories) then some balance is restored. A car that covers the basics of reliable, long-lasting transportation more than covers the costs.

I think these boys need to grow a pair. Shop and kitchen are both vital. A man who ca't fix a car is like a woman who can't can food. Of questionable desirability as a mate. (Submit whatever skills: handling a pair of horses or midwifery. Etc). That would be the personal side of things. The larger context -- that the future will not be like the past -- was best summed up by Morris Berman a few days ago:

"The US made money the purpose of life, everyone bought into it, and now there's no money."

.

.

10-25-2013, 09:10 AM	#76 (permalink)
slowmover Banned Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Fort Worth, Texas Posts: 2,442 2004 CTD - '04 DODGE RAM 2500 SLT Team Cummins 90 day: 19.36 mpg (US) Thanks: 1,422 Thanked 737 Times in 557 Posts	Let's see . . this country has not created a single "family wage" job since 1999, student debt loan is astronomical . . and the AHCA will drain another $3k annually from a 20-something . . money he doesn't have. Yet, if someone needs a car they'll find a way (as distinct from wants). Much of my skill was self-taught (reading factory service manuals), but it was the decision to buy the tools which made the difference in keeping transportation costs low. It may have been someone around here who made the comment, and it is apt, that the tool is 90% and learning to use it well is 10%. Doing the grunt work and hiring out the specialized, skilled work hours to near-minimum was a good approach. But this approach also meant housing that could/would accommodate working on the car on the premises. And foregoing a social life of any note for weeks at a time. I lived (and now live) in cities where public transportation is fair to poor (times versus distances) and ever-present heat make it highly unattractive. These have been metro areas predicated on automobile ownership where one is unlikely to find decent employment without a car. So sacrifices to that end [future orientation] paid off. The current vehicle was paid for in cash, used. Smart Spec and Smart Use have kept CPM as well as annual costs to a minimum. To have a social life -- to put myself back into 20-something shoes -- among those one might wish to marry in a post WWII city it would seem that a car is still mandatory. Better to have the options open, in other words. I do wonder if the "I can't have the car I want" syndrome is not simply being intimidated by learning to maintain and repair (plus associated costs), but in not going the next step, aesthetically, and cleaning said car to the toothbrush-in-the-crevices level. As my Depression-era childhood Dad would have said, old clothing that is repaired, cleaned and pressed brings no shame to the wearer. The time to buff out faded paint and to do the cheap, but worthwhile changes (new carpet, headliner and seatcovers) is the sort of thing that causes it all to be too much, emotionally, to those who believe that there is nothing in life lasting more than twenty-minutes that cannot be interrupted by yet another cretinous tweet, twitter or twaddle. (And they are. All of them. Same for tattos. Hilarious that some believe that there is "good" and "bad" therein. Same for t-shirts worn in public. Etc. Ad infinitum). On the other hand, extending childhood to age 25 seems to me to be the answer to the question of why the younger don't want to drive (so much). Yes, expensive. Yes, time-consuming . . but where are the jobs (not McJobs) geographically, and where is the place (more in the heart, if not the head) to which I'm going? A rudderless ship will have no crew. Human evolution it is said, is diverging along two pathways. The very few who will wait to marry and establish a household once a career is underway (now usually in jobs protected from competition), and the four-fifths of Americans for whom a two parent family is a luxury not seemingly affordable are on separate pathways. Multi-generational households with a family car makes more sense. The poor have to reproduce sooner so that both the youhg adults can be employed full-time, and their parents still young enough to raise the youngest before the early death attendant on the worse occupations and shorter lifespans arising from poor health. 18 versus 28, for first children . . . after all, the entire meaning of human life is to reproduce. Nothing else comes close. And a car was once a way to have privacy [sex] that is no longer so necessary. Five-generations per century is quite different than three, folks. Cars are like kitchens: elevated out of proportion to their importance. The garage should take just as much money to finish out as the kitchen, and maybe more, as it is not solely a place of consumption (and some income offsetting), but is possibly income-producing. If both are seen as "shops" (manufactories) then some balance is restored. A car that covers the basics of reliable, long-lasting transportation more than covers the costs. I think these boys need to grow a pair. Shop and kitchen are both vital. A man who ca't fix a car is like a woman who can't can food. Of questionable desirability as a mate. (Submit whatever skills: handling a pair of horses or midwifery. Etc). That would be the personal side of things. The larger context -- that the future will not be like the past -- was best summed up by Morris Berman a few days ago: "The US made money the purpose of life, everyone bought into it, and now there's no money." . . Last edited by slowmover; 10-25-2013 at 09:50 AM..