• relay@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    9 months ago

    The more cost effective option for people is also less sustainable. They could subsidize people to live in walkable cities and invest in public infrastructure in the cities so the money can service the greatest number of people, but no. Let the market dictate people from renting apartments that they can use public transit to renting houses or apartments and having to commute via car.

    • darkcalling@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      Alienation and isolation comrade. People living in livable cities form communities that risk solidarity. Whereas the suburbs and car culture breed reaction, isolationism, and have built in punishments for not slaving hard enough to keep the proles down and afraid of meeting their basic needs next week because of something as simple as a $1500 auto repair bill.

  • TWeaK
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    This tracks, people don’t want to live in expensive cities if they can live for less in the countryside and work remotely.

    • M500@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      My wife and I are living in a city now, but plan to buy land and a house outside of the city instead of a small condo in the city for the same cost.

      We are still saving and we are not in the US.