Hacker News Reader

Comment by EZ-E | Hacker News Reader

Housing affordability & transportation costs relationship is the cornerstone that triggered the yellow jacket movement in France. Take most vulnerable families that live away from employment centers (cities) because they can't afford a house there, you have dependability to driving cars (no public transport). The government steps in and tries to tax fuel more for ecology - which pleases richer urban voters but squeezes people who bought a house 20 years ago back when fuel, insurance, parking wasn't as expensive. Their house are the only one that - by the way - are the only ones that didn't gain value.

The ever increasing "metropolisation" as we call it, is scary. More and more, you better be able to afford living in a big city or suffer the negative consequences

View on HN

> squeezes people who bought a house 20 years ago back when fuel, insurance, parking wasn't as expensive. Their house are the only one that - by the way - are the only ones that didn't gain value.

Are those the same people that tell me to move out of the city into a bigger place and commute in? They seem pretty smug about their choice, “you paid how much for your tiny little house? You could buy a mansion for that here”

Well this is why those people are wrong.

Some people do not realize they could get bit pretty hard by buying a house far away, that is indeed cheap and larger - but what happens when fuel gets even more expensive and governments issue many taxes and restrictions to discourage car usage ? (without offering realistic public transport options). Not to mention the usually poorer infrastructure/hospitals/schools

Note that it depends on the locality though, some places manage to find the sweet spot - not too far and still not that expensive. In some cities this doesn't exist.

I observed two occasions where house prices in outlying areas of Southern California declined more than any decline at the same time in close-in houses. The first time was the early Nineties. These outlying areas also didn't have decent transportation into the urban areas, especially the first time around. I think Metrolink has expanded in the areas I am commenting on, "Inland Empire" areas like Victorville and Temecula.

Is the fuel really a concern there? I mean, fuel is such a tiny small part of the expenses overall in Europe. Almost invisibly small. France consumes 162K barrels of gasoline a day, or 9.4 billion liters at average price of 1.57 EUR. That's 1.2% of the value of household consumption, and by far not all of it is gasoline consumption by consumers. So we are speaking of <1% of household expenses. How is this squeeze?

This is what I'm trying to work out.

Here in the UK the AA come out every time theres a budget, asking for lower fuel duty for "hard pressed motorists".

The reality is fuel isn't that expensive, as evidenced by the fact that large 4x4s are getting increasingly popular, and people are happy to drive the half mile to the local shop to buy a pint of milk.

Edit: Plus EVs are a thing now, if fuel prices really were that bad.

According to this link[1], you are off by a factor of 10. It lists France at 1692K barrels per day. I wanted to double check the figures because I know how much it costs to operate a car and it's not 1.2% of household.

[1] - https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/France/oil_consumption/

It's more complicated than that. In the Paris region, a lot of middle-class families that wanted apartments in the first ring in the 80s/90s often couldn't afford them (my parents tried to buy a 3bd 70m^2 and settled on a 4bd house double the size during that time), and houses in the second ring were really cheap in comparaison. That, plus the fact that trains to Paris weren't that bad/getting better led to a lot of people moving to the car suburbs.

As the parent comment mentioned, they're also the ones that didn't appreciate in the 2010s (after crazy appreciation in the 90s/00s): https://www.meilleursagents.com/prix-immobilier/ile-de-franc...

That depends on the transport costs.

In the UK you get into the centre of London from many places outside, on public transport, faster than you can cross London. And buy the much bigger property.

People living outside cities bought houses also for tiny prices.

Can't be possible to keep everything always cheap unfortunately, while living in the city is more expensive

Living in a big city has more advantages.

Look at AQI of New York, compare it with Cardiff.

Not only people living in small cities are missing opportunities but also quality air, water and other inputs.

> quality air

What do you even mean??

Air Quality Index. Small cities have more pollution due to lower density which makes public transport unfeasible or inefficient.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com