An important economic comparison between auto-centric and car free (or
any other alternative) settlement is a comparison of net values. Take
how much the lifestyles in a particular development are valued by the
people living them and subtract the costs of producing those lifestyles.
The lifestyles in car-centered developments are experienced in and
beyond the dwellings of automobile ravaged cities and suburbs. We are
familiar with these settings. Characteristics of the car-free city
lifestyle are largely unfamiliar, if highly desired by some.
Cost is the total value of resources (including human time and effort)
used to produce, operate and maintain the housing, transportation,
Joel's "simple reason" for expecting greater value to be returned to
labor is correct if we add a condition. The condition is that people
value their car-free consumption as highly as they would auto-centered
We would hope that there would also be greater value in
non-consumptive uses of time in the car-free environment. In that
case, people may find it worth enjoying more leisure and, given the
opportunity, would work fewer hours.
With that general framework sketched out, I acknowledge that there may
be reasons to answer questions about workforce issues particular to
--- In email@example.com
, "J.H. Crawford" <mailbox@c...>
> Kevin said:
> >I would
> >think the jobs and industry created to unravel an autocentric world
> >and build a pedestrian/transit/cycling world would have to mitigate
> >the jobs lost to the auto industry.
> This is something that we ought to try to demonstrate. I'm pretty
> sure it's correct, but we need proof. It ought to be so for a
> simple reason: the inputs of raw materials and energy for a
> carfree world are much lower than for an auto-centric world. This
> means that a given level of inputs will require a greater amount
> of labor.