Young people don't buy cars because "They’re narcissistic. Apathetic. Pampered."

[mpbaker22]

The whole premise is flawed. If you follow the links it is back to an article by folks pushing alternatives to cars and trying to rein in highway spending. The reduction in average miles driven starting in 2008 is the main piece of data, but could also be explained by high gas prices, economic woes, and especially retiring baby boomers who no longer need to commute.

I predict millenials will buy cars and drive more than ever.

It'll be interesting to see.  There's a large group that wants to take their parents lifestyle and expand on it.  Then, there's a large group, many of whom are hipsters, which I'm a part of (23) who question why so many expenditures are "necessary" and how can they be optimized?

[Jamesqf]

"Juvenile delinquency has increased at an alarming rate and is eating at the heart of America"
US juvenile court judge, 1946

And he was wrong?  How, exactly?

[Jamesqf]

The reduction in average miles driven starting in 2008 is the main piece of data, but could also be explained by high gas prices, economic woes, and especially retiring baby boomers who no longer need to commute.

Not to mention telecommuting.  My total driving miles have certainly decreased, even though I probably drive more for - or more precisely, to get to - recreation than before telecommuting.

[theredviper]

When EVs become more mainstream and cheaper, I can see overall driving miles beginning to climb again.  Cars will be more environmentally friendly and very cheap to drive (vs the price of gas).

[randymarsh]

"Juvenile delinquency has increased at an alarming rate and is eating at the heart of America"
US juvenile court judge, 1946

And he was wrong?  How, exactly?

Well for one we've started involving law enforcement in issues that used to be handled by teachers and administrators. The more police officers (often called "resource" officers) we put in school, the rate kids at those schools get criminal records goes up. I wonder why that is. A school in I believe Texas even let prison guards employed by Corrections Corporation of America conduct drug searches. Let that sink in for a second - we're letting employees of a corporation who has a financial incentive to find drugs (more arrests = more inmates = more $$$) search teenagers for illegal drugs (almost always cannabis) in our public schools.

The school-to-prison pipeline is very real in certain areas - often with large populations of color and poverty.

[Jamesqf]

The school-to-prison pipeline is very real in certain areas - often with large populations of color and poverty.

But those are consequences, which are, if anything, evidence that he was right.

[randymarsh]

My take on that quote was that the judge was suggesting that juveniles are committing more and more crime, while I'm arguing that we've changed the definition of crime and our willingness to enforce harsh punishments. Small school yard fights are turning into felony assaults. Texting a nude picture of yourself results in a distribution of child pornography charge and years on a sex offender list. Zero tolerance policies at schools push kids into the streets when they're suspended and expelled.

[micah_mae_]

I just try not to judge people for non-logical reasons like tattoos, music tastes, race, etc.

Why are tattoos and music tastes not valid ways to judge people?  As for instance if I want to hire intelligent people, wouldn't visible evidence that a candidate was willing to spend quite a bit of money for the privilege of sitting for hours while being stuck with needles (and without anesthetic, too!) tend to indicate that they probably are not all that intelligent?

Thomas Edison, Winston Churchill, Roosevelt..just to name a few.

[Bakari]

"Juvenile delinquency has increased at an alarming rate and is eating at the heart of America"
US juvenile court judge, 1946

And he was wrong?  How, exactly?

Rising over what period of time, compared to what other period of time?  How did we define delinquency before during and after those times?  What rate of increase is alarming, and what does "eating at the heart of America" even mean?

The statement is so vague and abstract it is impossible for it to be either wrong or right.

[Richard3]

The point of my post is basically that every generation since written history began believes that the one after it is irresponsible etc. 

[Bakari]

The point of my post is basically that every generation since written history began believes that the one after it is irresponsible etc.

I know.  I agree.  I found it rather ironic that our resident old angry guy implied that the most recent one was the "correct" one!

[capital]

Without arguing as to the truth of the Ford story, I think you are greatly missing the point.  Sure, if you're so unfortunate as to have to live in an urban area, streetcars (or other mass transit) will get you to work and back just fine.  But isn't there more to life than that?  (Indeed, isn't that why so many of you want early retirement?)  Mass transit just can't take you to most of the interesting places, including that secluded back lane with your g/b-friend.

The vast majority of young people live in urban areas. How, exactly, do you propose meeting said girl or boyfriend if you don't live anywhere near many young folks, there are few social spaces or events catering to young folks, and you can't go out for more than one drink without a ton of planning?

[Jamesqf]

The vast majority of young people live in urban areas. How, exactly, do you propose meeting said girl or boyfriend if you don't live anywhere near many young folks, there are few social spaces or events catering to young folks, and you can't go out for more than one drink without a ton of planning?

On-line dating? 

Another question worth asking is how you expect to meet/get to know that potential significant other when going out for a drink is a long, long way from your idea of a pleasant way to spend time? 

Maybe I'm slow, but it took me years to figure out that the only people I was likely to meet while hanging out in bars & clubs were people that liked to drink and listen to poplar music, which made it pretty darned improbable that I was going to meet anyone with much in the way of shared interests. 

But in the years since I stopped doing that, I've managed to get involved with interesting women that I've met in graduate classes (physic and CS), at political meetings, sailboarding, bike touring in Scotland, riding horses, and even the old introduction by mutual friends.

[Kriegsspiel]

The vast majority of young people live in urban areas. How, exactly, do you propose meeting said girl or boyfriend if you don't live anywhere near many young folks, there are few social spaces or events catering to young folks, and you can't go out for more than one drink without a ton of planning?

Werd.

[wepner]

The vast majority of young people live in urban areas. How, exactly, do you propose meeting said girl or boyfriend if you don't live anywhere near many young folks, there are few social spaces or events catering to young folks, and you can't go out for more than one drink without a ton of planning?

On-line dating? 

Another question worth asking is how you expect to meet/get to know that potential significant other when going out for a drink is a long, long way from your idea of a pleasant way to spend time? 

Maybe I'm slow, but it took me years to figure out that the only people I was likely to meet while hanging out in bars & clubs were people that liked to drink and listen to poplar music, which made it pretty darned improbable that I was going to meet anyone with much in the way of shared interests. 

But in the years since I stopped doing that, I've managed to get involved with interesting women that I've met in graduate classes (physic and CS), at political meetings, sailboarding, bike touring in Scotland, riding horses, and even the old introduction by mutual friends.

Why should anyone take relationship advice from you when in another thread you said that your lack of sex was a crisis of similar magnitude to the economic condition of subsistence farmers in Ethiopia?

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/antimustachian-wall-of-shame-and-comedy/living-off-of-other-people's-work/msg79027/#msg79027

[Rural]

The vast majority of young people live in urban areas. How, exactly, do you propose meeting said girl or boyfriend if you don't live anywhere near many young folks, there are few social spaces or events catering to young folks, and you can't go out for more than one drink without a ton of planning?

On-line dating? 

Another question worth asking is how you expect to meet/get to know that potential significant other when going out for a drink is a long, long way from your idea of a pleasant way to spend time? 

Maybe I'm slow, but it took me years to figure out that the only people I was likely to meet while hanging out in bars & clubs were people that liked to drink and listen to poplar music, which made it pretty darned improbable that I was going to meet anyone with much in the way of shared interests. 

But in the years since I stopped doing that, I've managed to get involved with interesting women that I've met in graduate classes (physic and CS), at political meetings, sailboarding, bike touring in Scotland, riding horses, and even the old introduction by mutual friends.

Why should anyone take relationship advice from you when in another thread you said that your lack of sex was a crisis of similar magnitude to the economic condition of subsistence farmers in Ethiopia?

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/antimustachian-wall-of-shame-and-comedy/living-off-of-other-people's-work/msg79027/#msg79027

Now that's ad hominem.

[wepner]

Yeah basically...

But I don't think MMM's blog would be quite as popular if he was working 2 jobs and was 50k in debt (but was still giving out the same advice) do you? That and I remembered how terrible I thought that original quote was and his last post reminded me of it...  (^^)b


OK as for addressing his actual advice:

I don't think online dating actually alleviates the problem of "there are less potential partners and less things to do in small towns than big cities." If you are trying to meet people online you still have to rely on the fact that they live close enough to you to meet occasionally or you'd have to *gasp* rely on those 4 inch screens that James hates so much.

Online dating in a big city seems to offer the same advantages as regular dating in a big city, more potential partners and more things to do when you are with your partner.

James did not refute either point or offer a solution to them. Instead it seems like he addressed a straw man argument of "I wanna go to lots of bars and clubs and hook up" which nobody in this thread said as far as I can tell.

[Jamesqf]

But I don't think MMM's blog would be quite as popular if he was working 2 jobs and was 50k in debt (but was still giving out the same advice) do you?

Things do change, over time.  As for instance I can give you pretty good advice, or at least advice based on first-hand knowledge, on how to live in poverty, even though I'm far from poor these days.  I might even use instances from my poorer days to illustrate points I'm trying to make.

I don't think online dating actually alleviates the problem of "there are less potential partners and less things to do in small towns than big cities."

Of course it does depend on one's tastes, but I've always found that there is practically nothing interesting to do in large cities (especially if you dislike drinking & the club scene), but plenty to do in rural areas.  There are also many things which can be done in rural areas which can't be done in cities (pleasantly, anyway), but not many of which the reverse is true.

If you are trying to meet people online you still have to rely on the fact that they live close enough to you to meet occasionally or you'd have to *gasp* rely on those 4 inch screens that James hates so much.

Not necessarily, as you can always use a 21" or so screen.  For physical meetings, remember that it's not so much absolute distance as travel time.

James did not refute either point or offer a solution to them. Instead it seems like he addressed a straw man argument of "I wanna go to lots of bars and clubs and hook up" which nobody in this thread said as far as I can tell.

Oh?  It was said here:

How, exactly, do you propose meeting said girl or boyfriend if you don't live anywhere near many young folks, there are few social spaces or events catering to young folks, and you can't go out for more than one drink without a ton of planning?

Pretty plainly implies that you're going out to bars/clubs and drink, no?

I addressed point #1 (fewer things to do) above.  Point #2 (fewer people) is perhaps less obvious, but a little thought should show that what matters for relationships is not how many people are in close proximity to you, but how many you can actually get to know.  In a city, you're just one more face in the crowd, while in the country you're an individual.  I've lived in cities, sometimes for a year or more, without exchanging more than an occasional word with the people in the neighboring apartments or stores where I shopped.  (Nor, to spare us another ad hominem, is this just a personal problem, as I observe the same behavior in others.)

[wepner]

Of course it does depend on one's tastes, but I've always found that there is practically nothing interesting to do in large cities (especially if you dislike drinking & the club scene), but plenty to do in rural areas.  There are also many things which can be done in rural areas which can't be done in cities (pleasantly, anyway), but not many of which the reverse is true.

I feel like you saying the bolded part is like some sort of breakthrough. I genuinely find your ideas interesting but a lot of time it seems like you are convinced that your ideas are objectively correct (maybe its just me...) I am curious what things you enjoy doing in rural areas that are more difficult in cities. It seems like living in a big city would make it easier  going to museums, plays, sporting events, seeing historic landmarks (in my case temples, shrines, statues etc.) playing rec league sports, walking/biking around and occasionally eating at restaurants or going out to a bar or club. I'm not suggesting all of these things are impossible in rural areas but more difficult.

If you are trying to meet people online you still have to rely on the fact that they live close enough to you to meet occasionally or you'd have to *gasp* rely on those 4 inch screens that James hates so much.

Not necessarily, as you can always use a 21" or so screen.  For physical meetings, remember that it's not so much absolute distance as travel time.

I think travel time varies widely depending on the city or how rural the town is doesn't it? I am pretty confident I could meet up with 15 million people or more if we each rode a train 30 minutes.

Oh?  It was said here:

How, exactly, do you propose meeting said girl or boyfriend if you don't live anywhere near many young folks, there are few social spaces or events catering to young folks, and you can't go out for more than one drink without a ton of planning?

Pretty plainly implies that you're going out to bars/clubs and drink, no?

I'll halfway concede this one (maybe more). Its entirely possible that my reading comprehension isn't as strong as I imagined it. Saying you can't go out for more than one drink does heavily imply that the goal is to have more than one drink. And bars and clubs are typically the place where young people go to drink more than one drink. Your response to that is totally fair. Sorry.    BUT :P     I don't think the quote taken as a whole is necessarily talking about only bars or clubs though "social spaces or events" can mean just about anything, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find examples of them in small towns that don't exist in cities.

I addressed point #1 (fewer things to do) above.  Point #2 (fewer people) is perhaps less obvious, but a little thought should show that what matters for relationships is not how many people are in close proximity to you, but how many you can actually get to know.  In a city, you're just one more face in the crowd, while in the country you're an individual.  I've lived in cities, sometimes for a year or more, without exchanging more than an occasional word with the people in the neighboring apartments or stores where I shopped.  (Nor, to spare us another ad hominem, is this just a personal problem, as I observe the same behavior in others.)

Your own advice of online dating could help out in that situation. There are also a lot of classes you can take, groups or clubs you could join you could hang out with coworkers... How did you make friends in the town you live now? Are you sure that those tactics wouldn't also work in a big city?

[Jamesqf]

I feel like you saying the bolded part is like some sort of breakthrough. I genuinely find your ideas interesting but a lot of time it seems like you are convinced that your ideas are objectively correct (maybe its just me...)

Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't.  I try to make the differences clear, but I can't always manage to do so in a post that's short enough that people will read it.  Perhaps I also assume that people reading share more of a common background than they actually do; that for instance they are familiar with things like biophilia and nature deficit disorder.

I am curious what things you enjoy doing in rural areas that are more difficult in cities.

Hiking, biking, cross-country skiing, riding the horse - all of which includes observing scenery, plants & wildlife.  Gardening.  Taking the dogs to the beach to chase tennis balls, or really anywhere they can run free.

It seems like living in a big city would make it easier  going to museums, plays, sporting events, seeing historic landmarks (in my case temples, shrines, statues etc.) playing rec league sports, walking/biking around and occasionally eating at restaurants or going out to a bar or club. I'm not suggesting all of these things are impossible in rural areas but more difficult.

Sure, most of those things are more possible in cities. The question is really to what extent those are actually interesting, versus being things to do in cities because the alternative is to sit in your apartment staring at the walls.   I'd also argue that while you certainly can walk & bike in cities, you're going to be spending a lot of mental effort on avoiding traffic.

While historic landmarks aren't something we have a lot of here in the western US (bar the occasional ghost town or abandoned mine), in Europe I've found a lot of historic things are in pretty rural areas.  In Britain, for instance, there's the Ridgeway, Hadrian's Wall, many neolithic sites like Avebury, Callanish, and Castlerigg that are about as rural as you can get.  On the mainland, there are a lot of Roman & pre-Roman sites that are fairly well out in the country, as for instance Aventicum and the Roman villa near Orbe-Boscéaz.

PS: If you read French, here's a link to some historic sites in the part of Switzerland where I used to live: http://www.yverdonlesbainsregion.ch/fr/Culture_Patrimoine/Sites_historiques

[Bakari]

Hiking, biking, cross-country skiing, riding the horse - all of which includes observing scenery, plants & wildlife.  Gardening.  Taking the dogs to the beach to chase tennis balls, or really anywhere they can run free.

I guess by city you must mean "extremely large, dense city, like SF or NY"?

Cause, in Oakland and in Richmond, I could/can do all of those things with no more than a 15minute bike ride (including biking in wilderness, with no traffic and few people). 
Well, except skiing, since there is no snow here, but it is more than worth it to me to forgo skiing to never have to deal with freezing temperatures!
I can also the things wepner finds fun, with about as long a ride, just in different directions.

Most important for me, though, on the topic of dating, is having a large enough pool of people.  In a city of 400,000, there are only a handful who are within close enough demographics (age, gender, religion, politics, single) who I am particularly interested in exploring a connection with.  If in the options for me here only 1 in hundreds looks interesting, how much slimmer would my chances of finding someone compatible be if there were only 4,000 people within biking distance?

I don't fail to get to know my neighbors better because the city is large and anonymous.  I fail to get to know them better because I start to get to know them, and they aren't interesting to me.

I guess its easier to find interesting people the closer to the norm your religion/politics/recreation/etc are
In truth, I would really love to live in a rural area, and one of the main things stopping me is the lack of options in people.  If I were single I would never consider it for a moment.

[dragoncar]

Hiking, biking, cross-country skiing, riding the horse - all of which includes observing scenery, plants & wildlife.  Gardening.  Taking the dogs to the beach to chase tennis balls, or really anywhere they can run free.

I guess by city you must mean "extremely large, dense city, like SF or NY"?

Cause, in Oakland and in Richmond, I could/can do all of those things with no more than a 15minute bike ride (including biking in wilderness, with no traffic and few

You can do this in SF too... Just choose location wisely.

[Jamesqf]

Cause, in Oakland and in Richmond, I could/can do all of those things with no more than a 15minute bike ride (including biking in wilderness, with no traffic and few people)

I'm surprised that you could do those things in the Oakland area,  Never actually lived there, but travelling around the area I never saw much in the way of open space.  Maybe a little in the hills, but then you're right down to suburbia turning into city on the other side. 

In any case. you're not doing those things in the city, you're just lucky enough to have a city that is a short distance from non-city.  I could do some of that starting from San Jose, too, and getting out of Lausanne to country was a 15-30 minute bike ride.  But those places are exceptions, with a fortunate combination of geography and political pressures to keep open space.