Make America Guzzle Again!?

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by slowmover

Metro sprawl due to parents being forced out of city school districts and their dangers...

Huh? When were parents ever forced out of city school districts? Of couse I'll never understand why anyone, especially someone with kids, would want to live in a city if they could afford to live elsewhere, but to blame this on urban schools seems really out of touch.

...and that women went to work to make up for the loss in their husbands income...

And now you're really pushing it. You don't think it just might be possible that a lot of women discovered (when they were finally allowed to) that there were better things to do with their lives than sit at home watching daytime TV? Or that just maybe some of them didn't want to spend their whole lives being dependent on some man for survival?

...efficient family transportation.

And what of the majority of us who aren't currently raising kids? You're making the tail wag the dog.

[slowmover]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Huh? When were parents ever forced out of city school districts? Of couse I'll never understand why anyone, especially someone with kids, would want to live in a city if they could afford to live elsewhere, but to blame this on urban schools seems really out of touch.



And now you're really pushing it. You don't think it just might be possible that a lot of women discovered (when they were finally allowed to) that there were better things to do with their lives than sit at home watching daytime TV? Or that just maybe some of them didn't want to spend their whole lives being dependent on some man for survival?



And what of the majority of us who aren't currently raising kids? You're making the tail wag the dog.

Ethnic cleansing = school desegregation. Throw in 1960s riots. Housing patterns radically changed. And how many hundreds of billions in today's money was lost in home equity across America? Haven't thought of this as something quite so obvious, have you?

Man has built cities since his beginning. Ask why, and let it sink in.

You think those housewives just sat around? Maybe in your family, try widening the frame of reference. Women are at the heart of maintaining culture. And raising children is the central feature of life. You don't honestly believe that work is is fulfilling do you? If so, we'd retire 20 years earlier than we do. The sacrifice might then be worthy it. Instead we give over children to minimum wage strangers. Wow, that's like having lost a war. We barely have a word in with our choice of work as it is.

Efficient long lasting family transportation hardly needs be a car for every adult. And on top of it, greatly increased cost of those vehicles. In every dimension applicable. There's a reasonable limit to FE and to emissions. The other problems far out weigh it. What we are stuck with needs examination. Cars are as good as they'll get for what they're called to do.

If you're an unmarried adult with no plans for children you've rather missed the point of life, protestations notwithstanding. So consider more carefully the plight of those who will carry civilization into the future as it isn't your burden. But it was that of your ancestors.

A car is . . . ?

[Ecky]

Yeah, afraid I have to disagree that the only point in women existing is to have and raise children.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by Ecky

Yeah, afraid I have to disagree that the only point in women existing is to have and raise children.

He didn't say that, he was saying what makes a family complete and most functional. It wouldn't have to be the woman or just the husband, they could alternate. But to maximize earning it would be better if one just stuck to paychecks and one to family care. I can make more in 10 hours of overtime a week than my wife could make full time at say Walmart. I work with women at the same pay or more who do the same thing whose husbands stay home with the kids. I also work with women who's husbands also make a big check and they both work 50 hour weeks and their kids are raised by others. That's fine as well but I bet my daughters who I love more than money prefer to be raised 100% of the time by people that would take a bullet for them not $8/hr for them.

I deliver mail for the post office BTW. They are hiring all the time somewhere, it's not a unique or limited job and is the same nationwide. It's not easy but it's better than roofing!

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by slowmover

Metro sprawl due to parents being forced out of city school districts and their dangers...

...and that women went to work to make up for the loss in their husbands income...

I'm going to go ahead and disagree twice. It was the students who were forced out of their districts by busing. And the husband's income was fine, women went to work and the cost of living doubled.

Okay three — women need to share the raising of children.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by Ecky

Yeah, afraid I have to disagree that the only point in women existing is to have and raise children.

Tell that to the judges who usually give the custody of the kids to the mother in case of divorce and keep the father with the burden of giving away a good chunk of his earnings to the ex-wife even though it wouldn't be used entirely to the benefit of their children.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by slowmover

Ethnic cleansing = school desegregation.

So what you're really saying is that the racists couldn't handle having their kids associate with others that weren't lily-white. Don't think I need to comment further on that.

Housing patterns radically changed. And how many hundreds of billions in today's money was lost in home equity across America?

Did housing patterns really change? Or are you just seeing the fact that increasing prosperity in some sectors of society, and mobility made possible by automobiles, made it possible for the newly-prosperous to move out of the city? As for equity lost, where? If you mean the bursting of the bubble a few years ago, most places have come back.

Man has built cities since his beginning. Ask why, and let it sink in.

Cities have existed because the low speed of communication made it necessary to clump together for economic activity. Probably for as long as there have been cities, and certainly since the time of the Romans, those who could afford to live outside cities did so. Initially this was the rich, who could afford to maintain their country estates and come to "town" only occasionally.

With the development of railroads in the 19th century, some people gained the option of living in semi-country (suburbs, that is) while commuting to work in the city. The automobile made it available to even more people, and today, with the internet, more and more people can live outside cities and still find remunerative work.

You think those housewives just sat around? Maybe in your family, try widening the frame of reference. Women are at the heart of maintaining culture.

Yes, I do. 'Cause I grew up in those days, and saw it taking place all around me. As for "maintaining culture", I've really no idea what you mean. Gossiping with neighboring housewives, maybe?

And raising children is the central feature of life.

Huh? Quite apart from the basic circularity of this - you raise kids so they can raise kids, ad infinitum - it seems to leave out large parts of life. Even for those people who choose to have kids, it's something that occupies less than half the span of a normal adult life.

You don't honestly believe that work is is fulfilling do you? If so, we'd retire 20 years earlier than we do.

I don't know that I'd use the word "fulfilling", but I certainly find my work enjoyable. That's why I continue to do it even though I can afford to live on my investments. OTOH, most of my acquaintances who have raised kids seem to be quite relieved when (or sometimes if) they finally leave the nest.



The sacrifice might then be worthy it. Instead we give over children to minimum wage strangers. Wow, that's like having lost a war. We barely have a word in with our choice of work as it is.

And on top of it, greatly increased cost of those vehicles. In every dimension applicable.

Hardly. I think if you compare the inflation-adjusted cost of today's basic cars to a similar vehicle of say the 1960s, you'll find that they're cheaper. What the greatly increased cost is going for is the increased size, and all the fancy stuff that gets added for ego reasons.

There's a reasonable limit to FE and to emissions.

Sure, but the typical car sold today is nowhere close to those limits.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

I can make more in 10 hours of overtime a week than my wife could make full time at say Walmart.

No doubt. But suppose your wife had instead gone to school, and got a degree in say engineering (or even business)?

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

No doubt. But suppose your wife had instead gone to school, and got a degree in say engineering (or even business)?

Judging by all the engineering and business degrees that work side by side with me I'd say she wouldn't do much better.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

I think if you compare the inflation-adjusted cost of today's basic cars to a similar vehicle of say the 1960s, you'll find that they're cheaper. What the greatly increased cost is going for is the increased size, and all the fancy stuff that gets added for ego reasons.

Even though some automotive systems such as steering, brake and suspension evolved a lot in that timeframe, it's actually quite hard to compare the no-frills versions of the older rides to their modern counterparts. Even though the newer ones often have some features that sounded like sci-fi some 50 years ago, most of the design and manufacturing techniques applied to modern cars are centered around cost-cutting. The lower cost of a FWD platform compared to the good old RWD layout which had been prevalent in the past is a good example of this trend.