Hacker News Reader

Moving about from place to place is not inherently valuable.

It clearly has value to the people who do it when they have the chance.

That doesn't mean the value of that travel is high. In fact it means the opposite: if the travel was so valuable, people would still do it when it's more difficult.

I think what happens is people make a decision of the effort and risk vs the reward, like every other activity.

Sure, any rational person facing austerity cuts whatever they value least. And any rational person enjoying growth can only add whatever the value low enough to not have yet.

Imagine the price of groceries rises to 100% of your wages, so you stop running the furnace. "If being warm were so valuable, you would still do it even when it means skipping a few meals."

Welfare is still harmed by austerity and boosted by growth.

A better line of argument, IMO: a denser environment would offer more value for less travel. Or, driving to a faraway discount store is only profitable because you pay 100% for manufactured goods and X < 100% for highway mileage.

There are plenty of good arguments against cars, this is not one of them, this is not even remotely intellectually honest.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com