top 86 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 99 points 7 months ago (76 children)

You know whose hurt by high prices? Poor people. Guess whose not hurt by them? Rich people.

  • source
  • hideshow 76 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 7 months ago

    A lot of people in the US still have states that don't allow mail-in voting, and can't get off work to vote. Those people are poor.

    A lot of poor people voted against this. Didn't matter- they still got it.

    They're going to suffer heavily. We can all try to do what we can to reduce the use of fossil fuels, but consumers have not had enough power to do anything meaningful at any point in my lifetime.

    Rich people will still technically be affected, but yeah they aren't going to go hungry.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago

    I'm hoping some of the poor people start to realize how dependent they are on gas though. They've been too comfortable with subsidized gas for too long, with us taxpayers all paying to lower gas prices artificially. It's time they notice and start thinking that maybe it's time to think about carpooling or buying smaller cars.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 7 months ago (63 children)

    Exactly. Based on this, and based on OP's other responses, OP is basically saying "I want poor people to suffer so rich people can make more money" (off of new car sales with more efficient engines, or electric).

    So my question for them is: is the income divide not great enough? If not, when will it be?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 63 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    Unless you drive a much bigger car than you need to (i.e. that guy who drives a ford 350 to the office), there's probably not much to save on engine efficiency. Maybe a liter/100km

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (57 children)

    That's mainly a problem for car-brained people. There are other modes of transportation, you know.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 57 child comments
  • [+] 13 points 7 months ago (23 children)
  • [–] -5 points 7 months ago* (22 children)

    People who live where there are [legitimately] zero other options -- i.e., actually rural -- are a negligible minority. 80% of the population has no excuse, and trying to "whatabout the other 20%" is a bad-faith argument.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    This might be true in some European countries, but it's not in the US. You don't have to be rural to not have public transportation options.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago

    Even in suburbia public transport is perfectly viable. You can set up networks of high-frequency stops places decently far apart, so the average person is maybe half a mile from the nearest stop. Then people can use micro-mobility options like scooters to cover that last mile.

    And if there aren't bike lanes or places for people to safely ride scooters? A city can create those overnight with a few traffic cones. There's just no political will to do so. When gas is $7 a gallon, that might change.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    You don’t have to be rural to not have public transportation options.

    But it does mean the lack of public transportation is illegitimate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    How so? It doesn't exist. I can't just will it into existence. It legitimately is not an option.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (7 children)

    80% sounds very high. Do you have any data to support that? I see rough estimates closer to 50/50. Mass transit isn't viable outside of Metro areas and a lot of people live far from big cities.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (6 children)

    https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/urban-rural-populations.html

    Despite the increase in the urban population, urban areas, defined as densely developed residential, commercial, and other nonresidential areas, now account for 80.0% of the U.S. population, down from 80.7% in 2010. This small decline was largely the result of changes to the criteria for defining urban areas implemented by the Census Bureau, including raising the minimum population threshold for qualification from 2,500 to 5,000. The rural population — the population in any areas outside of those classified as urban — increased as a percentage of the national population from 19.3% in 2010 to 20.0% in 2020.

    They've even tried to prop up the rural population counts by changing the definition, but it still only manages to be 20% anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    You can live in a densely populated city and still need to travel long distances regularly though.. Especially if you're poor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    But the key is that that isn't a legitimate need because driving is the only reasonable way to solve the problem; it's an illegitimate need caused by a failure of politicians to allow correct city planning and infrastructure.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    I work in many different locations. Some of them remote. I often bring large equipment with me. More than that, my work days tend to be anywhere from 10 hours to 16 hours long, typically with a lot of manual labor included. Some of my commutes can be 2 hours one way. I've worked plenty of those 16 hour days with 4 hours of driving added on top. The thought of riding a bike or running the public transit gauntlet (which, will typically double or quadruple the commute times in my area) is repulsive.

    I think you're massively over-simplifying this issue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Guess what: you're that special snowflake who has a legitimate need to drive. The vast majority of people are not like you.

    Just like pearl-clutching about rural people, bringing up arguments like yours to try to make excuses for why the majority "have to" drive is bad-faith whataboutism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    Don't know where you get your figures, but my research says otherwise.

    45% of Americans have no access to public transportation at all, particularly in rural and outer suburban areas.

    And, while 55% have access to public transit, it's often not running when/where they need it to go. Or it might take hours of their life from them. Public transit isn't such a great deal if it turns a 15 minute commute into 90 minutes. That's an extra couple of hours per day of your time, unpaid and unproductive. It adds up.

    But, this is the way the transit system is designed in the USA. It's no accident that public transit is so inconvenient. Major car companies lobby against public transit, and the politicians gladly trade their integrity for a campaign contribution.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    45% of Americans have no access to public transportation at all, particularly in rural and outer suburban areas.

    And the primary reason for this is that gas is cheap and that there's little political demand for public transport. Public transport sucks because only the poorest of the poor use it. In places where the working and middle class use it, it actually provides decent service.

    Good public transport and low gas prices are mutually exclusive.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    The majority of the USA lives in what is considered rural suburbs. Aka the nearest place for work is more than 10 miles.

    https://www.axios.com/2024/03/24/average-commute-distance-us-map

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    I literally provided you data that shows that the majority of workers drive more than 10+ miles...most people are not in the middle of cities. Period. Stop trying to make it sound like the majority of the usa is in dense cities.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (2 children)

    I mean...the census can define whatever it wants to define, but the rest of us still have to live in the real world.

    Sure, you can call my satellite suburban neighborhood "urban". But it's 3 miles of twisting, turning roads just to reach the nearest convenience store. The nearest bus stop would be at least 7 miles away.

    Maybe we shouldn't rely solely on the Census Bureau in this regard? Perhaps a transportation authority of some sort would be able to provide better measuring stick for this particular discussion?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (1 child)

    Your three replies to me keep talking about how things "are." I'm talking about how that's fucked up and has no excuse to be that way. Your comments are not providing "nuance," you're providing tired excuses that I've already heard ad nauseam.

    I DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THE EXCUSES. 80% OF AMERICANS SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO TRANSIT, AND THE FACT THAT A LOT OF THEM DON'T IS WRONG.

    The suburbs were a mistake, and must be fixed. The "it is what it is" argument is nothing but a lazy goddamn cop-out. I don't fucking want to hear it, and you shouldn't either! Demand better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    If you don't want to hear other people's opinions, then you will never get your way. You will always be unhappy. Nothing will ever be good enough. People want to be heard. They like validation. And they definitely follow emotion before logic. But you can't change the system without the help of other people, even people you don't 100% agree with.

    I speak from the heart and I speak with empathy. I FEEL YOU. I'm frustrated, too. I'm fed up.

    Through the last few years, I've been thinking about moving out of the country. In terms of places that I can make a better life for myself, the pickings are slim. The USA isn't the best country out there, but it's not the worst by far. I'm openly LGBTQ, which automatically limits my options. I don't have a lot of money, so Western Europe is too pricey. Etc, etc....but, yeah, eventually I'll pull the trigger and just leave.

    You want to convince people how wonderful things would be if only we do it your way? Then run for office. Seriously. If you are this passionate about changing the status quo, if you are 100% sure that your way is the right way, that's what you should be doing. Change the world for the better, my friend, even for a brief moment. It's more than I've been able to accomplish in a lifetime.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Its true! I strongly believe in public transport. Particularly the transport that is also dependent on oil... Where I live though, if I wanted to get to work without my car it would change my trip time from 45m - 1.5h to about 2h-3h. Each way. I don't feel like spending 6h travelling so it's not really a choice for many of us.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 5 points 7 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    When I started my job last year they straight up told us Uber doesn't come out there cause it's too rural and Google Maps still hasn't bothered updating to list the street the building was built on last year.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    Well, in a high gas price environment, workplaces are forced to stop requiring their employees to commute to bumfuck nowhere simply because they can buy land cheap there. Companies that insist on building factories or facilities without any respect for their employees' commuting needs will simply go bankrupt, fools and their money being soon parted.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Are car brained people going to be the only ones affected by rising food prices due to an increase in transportation costs? How about those that don't have any other means but to drive to work to make a living because public transportation isn't available and buying an EV isn't an option?

    It's not just an issue for car brained people, it's also an issue for narrow minded people, such as yourself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Oh no, rising food prices could be real. But that doesn’t mean other things should be expensive as well. There is always a chance to cut personal costs elsewhere - like transportation, for instance.

    What I do believe is that it could be the thing that’s needed to push for better infrastructure and public transportation, but that won’t happen if you just look at it as if you’re only a victim and can’t do anything about it. If people can get vocal and push their (local) government to look at alternatives, you could achieve a lot. If you just want to sulk in a corner acting like “oh it’s bad and there’s nothing that can be done”, then you’re the narrow minded one. Look at the opportunity it brings and that could be solved in the medium/long term. Okay, you have a short term problem, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be solved. You said in another comment “because alternate options just pop up over night”. No, they don’t, but if you expect every problem to be fixed over night, you’re gonna have a very difficult life.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    It's a problem right now and getting worse. Long term goals for change are good, but in the best circumstances that takes years of planning and implementation.

    People can cut personal costs, but that shouldn't have to be done. That's simply a work around for people to survive, but we're here to live. I could turn my heat down to 50° in the house, but I shouldn't have to live in discomfort to make ends meet. I could eat just rice and beans but I should be able to afford a balanced diet. Some of us can't just cut costs on transportation because there aren't any other options. Saying to just costs is a lot like victim blaming.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 7 months ago (7 children)

    No, there aren't.

    Plenty of places have no other option.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    People like you remind me of evangelical Christians.

    You are all perfectly content to have other people suffer in hopes that a wonderful future will emerge.

    If you want to suffer, go right ahead. Don't expect other people to be miserable so you can feel superior.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    yeah, let's keep things just the way they are and stop hoping that societal changes can be a motor for improvement

    all I'm saying is there aren't alternatives YET, but situations like this could create a positive change in mindset and eventually infrastructure as well. fine by me if you want to be a glass-half-empty kind of person

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] -1 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    "No, there aren't."

    Yes, in a lot of the world there are. Your comment disagrees with itself. You can't say "no, completely wrong" and then say "only in some places."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

    You're just being pedantic.

    Obviously, the first sentence was meant as a rhetorical refutation.

    Mimicking poor reading skills to make a point smacks of desperation.

    And you're being willfully ignorant when you ignore the main point, that for many drivers there are no good options.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago (11 children)

    There are many regions where alternative forms of transport aren't very viable. Nearly non-existent public transit and bike infrastructure because everything was designed from the beginning with cars in mind. Zoning requirements that mean everything is spread out and impossible to walk between. Possibly even combined with terrible weather for much of the year.

    Places where making changes to fix those issues, increase public options, etc. are met with stiff political backlash, not necessarily from the car people, but just simple conservatives or regressives that don't think any money should be spent on that infrastructure, often simply because it's not something they'd use.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (8 children)

    but, and I realise this might be a bit utopian, the more people (have to) use alternative modes of transportation, the more the need for better infrastructure will grow. domino effect and all that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (7 children)

    Oh definitely, but making those changes requires funding them. And that's virtually impossible to get voters to approve in some places currently.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (4 children)

    sometimes I'm really glad that I'm European

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Much of Europe has the advantage here with simply existing before cars. Places that can't fit car traffic, etc. so alternatives are either a requirement or already a higher priority than destroying existing infrastructure to make it fit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago

    Much of Europe has the advantage here with simply existing before cars.

    First of all, American cities also existed before cars.

    Second, many European cities were rebuilt from rubble after WWII to accommodate cars.

    That factor is not nearly the excuse you think it is.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child)

    Building a city wrong doesn't mean "alternative forms of transport aren't very viable;" it means the city was built wrong and that must be corrected.

    And make no mistake, that is very viable: the Netherlands already did it (it was not always like that: it was rebuilt for cars after WWII and then rebuilt again starting in the 1970s when they realized they'd fucked up). Paris is doing it right now. It is not actually hard, and it is not actually expensive -- at least not compared to the long-term societal costs of continuing car-dependency.

    because everything was designed from the beginning with cars in mind.

    This is a straight-up lie, BTW. All the cities -- including "newer" sunbelt ones, like LA or Houston or Atlanta -- were in fact built for walking and streetcars first, and then demolished to accommodate cars.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Yeah, in a major metropolitan area.

    Trains are cool! There's like two train tracks that go through town and they only carry freight. There are no passenger trains anywhere around here.

    We also have buses. They don't come within 5 miles of me. Also a non-starter.

    I guess it's cool to hate cars if you live with your parents, but for those of us with bills to pay, we gotta go get that bread. But uh, have fun with your online gaming or whatever. It's just not sustainable for most of us.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago

    I graduated in '21, moved in with my gf at the same time, started working (to afford rent and surviving, you know) and bought a house last year. But go off I guess. I have bills to pay and hate cars as the sole method of transportation at the same time, it's amazing! Even have my driver's license since I was 18 (9 years already, how time flies). Crazy concept.

    I'll go have fun with reading a good book now. Cheerio!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    You don't have good public transit because you and your neighbors have chosen not to vote for it. Maybe that will change when gas is $7 a gallon.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    You don’t think poor people suffer from climate change? Or are you a science denier?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 7 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] [S] 7 points 7 months ago (8 children)

    You know who could hurt rich people? Poor people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child)

    Sure there are infinitely more people who suffer from this than people who benefit.

    But people have a limited amount of energy to do things or even think. I believe with people who actually have to work for a living, most of the energy goes towards immediate necessities: the daily tasks, working, getting food on the table, paying bills etc. A huge amount of energy and even time is consumed by stress alone that results from living like this. The tiny amount of energy and time people have for passions and socialising are probably spent on those or resting, or just escapism.

    How can people living and feeling like this actually change things ? I'd assume massive systemic change needs consistent mass movements.

    People would need to have time and energy to think and act. We'd also need willingness to do those things. It feels like not thinking and not acting consumes less energy and time, and therefore is the more likely choice.

    If it is possible to change things for the better for the vast majority of people, why aren't they changing ?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    Things aren't bad enough yet. Watching the political scene for the past 10 years has been like a frog slowly acclimating itself to a boiling pot of water that eventually kills it.

    Also, power IS power. Do you find yourself wondering why North Koreans put up with their Dear Leader? Or how the USSR was able to control half of Germany, along with Ukraine, Belarus and a dozen other nations?

    You've been taught that in America, power resides with the people. But it never did. Power always follows the money. Those who own property have the power. It's always been this way, a struggle against all the greedy, power-hungry fucks who can't get enough.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (4 children)

    You know who hurt people? Hurt people.

    The cycle doesn't end unless you end it. Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

    That's what they tell you. Funny, though, that nothing changes - for better or worse - until the threat of violence enters the picture.

    Slavery wasn't ended until the nation was ready for civil war.

    Global fascism wasn't stopped until the Nazis were slaughtered.

    Peaceful protests are worthless on a small scale, in terms of affecting change. BLM protests, 1% protests, pro-choice protests - all are great for showing unity among your "tribe", but they don't directly change anything.

    That's why Trump is cracking down with ICE and weaponizing the DOJ. That's why we see headlines like "Six Antifa protesters convicted of terroristic threats". Keep the protests small, keep the average Joe scared of taking to the streets, stoke the fear of violence erupting and legal entanglements.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    until the threat of violence enters the picture

    Isn't that one of the key definitions of fascism?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago*

    It's a key tenant of several social conflict theories.

    I'm no expert, but the way I understand it, many early sociologists focused on the systems and structures of society. They emphasized the order and structure of "civilized" societies, usually with a bias toward European societies.

    Then people like Marx and Weber came along and proposed that these societies were not "civilized", but rather oppressive. They pointed to class struggles and oligarchs. Other sociologists began to highlight the struggles of marginalized groups like women and people of color. They followed the money and power.

    SO, as an example, we use a landlord and his tenant. We could describe the relationship as mutually beneficial. The tenant needed a roof over his head, the landlord provided one. The system functions as intended, benefiting both parties. But we might look deeper and see that housing prices are inflated. The tenant can't afford a house, but the landlord owns 20 properties. The tenant wants to own property, but he's shut out. The system is still functioning as intended, but the intention is to make the rich person more money and keep the poor person oppressed.

    Obviously, there's no hard and fast rules. There's no final answer.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 7 months ago*

    Bring it, my preferred ride is a bicycle. I am usually bummed when I have to drive even though I have a fun car with manual and AWD.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    I agree. We need every bit of war against fossil fuels, even if we burn with them!

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    If there's one thing I've come to the hard conclusion of in the last couple months it's this. People don't change shit and will put up with a lot of bullshit until it seriously negatively impacts their quality of life. How does that take shape in capitalism? Everything is fucking expensive. Then things start to change for the better. There is no room for another bailout, the government is bankrupt, it's debt from wall to wall. The change is happening, AI is like crack cocaine for the demise of capitalism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    this is basically accelerationism, and I think it would make a lot more sense if major decisions were mostly made by consumers ... but that's unfortunately not how most decisions are made

    you can't ignore the structure and function of power in society - you're just engaging in victim blaming because of your ignorance of how society is actually molded and influenced

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago

    Oil is one of those “have to have” things for most people. Fixed demand + reduced supply = pure profit for those who sell it, and that’s about it. And not even a productive kind; it’s kinda a wealth transfer without any actual change in what’s being traded.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›