Why do we have to commute?
Filed Under (Uncategorized) by admin on 23-04-2006
Ostensibly about the grueling commute more and more Americans must endure daily in their pursuit of the American Dream, this puff piece from Newsweek is really all about plugging the myriad new products available from car companies, fast-food joints, and convenience stores targeting the poor bastard stuck in never-ending commutes.
Here is an excerpt from an article I wrote a couple of years ago outlining what I think about the need for so many people to commute:
Does anyone think that people slogging away in drab government work pens would be there if they absolutely didn’t need the J. O. B.? I don’t. What power would the tax man have if the fifty women that work at the county tax office didn’t need to work because one earner in the family was sufficient?
If a person didn’t need to work, but wanted to work anyway, do you think they would choose slogging as a clerk at the tax office? Do you think they would choose to slog from place to place, submitting their curricula vitae to morons who always seem to get stuck in middle management on the Principle of Peter–the ones who always make it suck for everyone else—explaining to said morons in detail what they want to be doing in five years and describing their biggest weakness? I hardly think so.
Maybe people given a choice would prefer to pursue a personal interest for intrinsic reward, such as higher education or elected office; or perhaps excel at an interest that used to just be an occasional hobby, like painting, photography, or writing. Maybe they might choose to start a business or adopt a child. Maybe volunteer to teach in areas that need it the most; or be a mother and housewife. You never know, there might even be that one in a million who will clerk at the tax office. One in a million adds up to about 300 people in America to work at the tax office. Can I suggest a tax plan that is simple to administer?
People don’t choose to work at the water, drainage and sewage office collecting the monthly water bill unless that is the best option from the available choices. Its just that simple.
<*snip*>
Make things back like it was when the government was more concerned with general welfare as opposed to being concerned with its own views of fairness. Make it so a single earner can again support a household and almost overnight the people commuting to work will be reduced by probably half of the two-earner families and a good number of single folk who would choose to no longer commute from the suburbs to the urban areas just to maximize earning potential. People might actually get married and stay married. Is it any surprise that money is the one thing that people say they argue about most in marriage, followed by children (Stanley & Markman, 1997). Right off the bat, the elimination of the largest problem leading to divorce is realized as a secondary benefit.
I think the research cited in the Newsweek article supports my assertion that we could easily achieve a 50% reduction in commuters: “Half the number who took NEWSWEEK’s online commuting poll said they don’t mind or they even enjoy the ride.” Therefore the other half do mind and very likely take no joy from the ride.
From another more recent article I wrote:
The government will never be able to fix the traffic problem. The traffic and emissions problem will be solved on the day society refuses to waste their valuable time sitting in traffic, and not a second sooner.
Instead of reducing liberty and privacy, increasing bureaucracy, wasting money, and ultimately solving nothing, how about instead of attacking the unsolvable problems of traffic congestion and pollution we attack the root cause?
The vast majority of people are on the roadways during business hours, especially during the commute. Compulsory driving, if you will. How come we can’t have public policy to encourage the large-scale use of telephony technology to allow for more workers to telecommute, thus reducing the number of those who are required to commute?
Why can’t large corporations be enticed to disperse their workforce by opening office hubs around a city instead of a single concentration in dense urban areas? Dense urban office concentrations are an old model from a time when many people utilized mass transportation and a single destination was convenient. Its time however has passed.
Why isn’t the public encouraged more to shop and purchase as many goods and services on-line as possible?
How come the solution to a problem always has to be an inconvenience or cost to the public and must not impose undue burdens on business or government?
Reducing by half the number of people who must commute more than 20 miles is achievable over the next decade and would probably do more to solve more social problems than almost anything I can think of the government has ever implemented. Of course, that is probably exactly what rules out such a solution.
When people talk of the massive changes coming due to technology and globalization, shifts in when and why people travel and how they purchase goods and services will ultimately be what causes the monumental changes in our culture and societies that fulfill these predictions.
Yes, because they would have to re-tool their operations, the big corporations stand to suffer in the short-term as a result of such policies, especially those who resist change. But with more free time and less expenses associated with one’s job, the individual would be the ultimate winner.
