I think you're missing the point... If you reject car ownership and the associated commute etc, you structure your life around that. You get a job and a house that are compatible with that philosophy. As a couple, neither of you would have a job that requires you to commute such distances.
Couldn't think of a better argument for why most people do not reject cars. Restricting your employment options to a small, say cyclable area around where you live can be extremely limiting for your employment opportunities, especially if you have a partner that also works. Especially considering the point another commenter said that oftentimes central business districts where the best jobs are can be prohibitively expensive for housing.
I'm not one to discount the cost of a long commute, and I'm hopeful that more remote and flexible work options will make it so people have less time commuting. But people like to own cars because in most cases they can be incredibly useful, and ignoring that fact won't help people transition off them.
>Restricting your employment options to a small, say cyclable area around where you live can be extremely limiting for your employment opportunities
You're missing the forest for the trees. If you live in a mid-sized city in the Netherlands and want to limit yourself to a 1 hour commute by public transit, there are just as many, if not more opportunities than if you live in a mid sized city in the US like Richmond because the Netherlands is that much denser, and transit optimizes for commercial centers. The difference that in the Netherlands, you still have the option of commuting by car, whereas, in the US you'd have to move.
But that's precisely the point. Many people (and arguably the young people in the OP), value life over "employment opportunities". That's the philosophy behind why many of us reject cars in our daily lives. Those hours of commuting I don't have to do I spend with my children. Equally, the commuting I do do is free exercise.
That only holds true when your basic needs to survive are met such that you're able to entertain a philosophy such as "reject car ownership". I suspect most people are going to abandon such a philosophy as soon as "putting food on the table" is no longer possible.
Conflicting ideas such as these crop up all the time. For instance, "commuting in a car is dead time, at least I can read/work on the train". A reasonable position at face value, but entirely useless to the person who finishes work at 17:00 and must pick the kids up from school at 17:30. The 30 mins car ride may be "dead time", but the 60 mins by public transport obviously doesn't work for them.
I would guess that the "rejecting car ownership" types probably have this as a subset of a broader philosophy where they've somewhat rejected wealth in favour of something else, or already have the economic freedom to make such a choice.
It's true you often need a car but it shouldn't be the case. Cars are terribly inefficienct way to get around. They are more expensive and slower (once there are enough of them) than alternatives. The anti-car sentiment is about changing the infrastructure so the cheaper/greener and faster alternatives get a chance.
Public transport is one alternative but I think small personal transport devices are more promising.
“Rejecting car ownership” types will probably live walking distance to schools. This doesn’t even have to mean living in a city centre somewhere, if anything schools are the one thing in America designed for local people as opposed being designed for cars.
Yes absolutely it's about choices. I would argue the debate is more worthwhile than that because it's good to think in terms of "what would be ideal" so that as a society we can plan for that. Too often, such public debate become bogged down with a view that those that oppose car usage as part of a daily routine are fundamentally opposed to car usage. In fact, typically we can see a better world and want it for everyone. Since improving things for drivers generally necessarily makes things worse for everyone that isn't in a car, the practicalities of reducing car usage are actually a reduction in existing privilege (which people will always fight tooth and nail).
And you're missing the point that these types of jobs are in or around the big cities, where people cannot afford housing. Well, maybe 5% can, the rest of us will commute.
I've moved between jobs every 1-2 years for the past 10. I've never been more than an hour away (and that was one job that was particularly far away). In most cases, because we have a good public transit system, I'm within 10-15 minutes by subway or 30/40 minutes walking. I don't even consider it too much. Never moved house.
So only one person instead of two has to suffer through a dreadful commute, you need only one car instead of two, one parent works close to where the kids go to school, etc. If you live in the middle, everything is far away for everybody.
That doesn't mean it's not viable to live in the middle, but I think these are some pretty good arguments why it's often preferable to live close to at least one partner's workplace. Obviously it's not going to work for everybody, but if you're thinking about where to buy your house, this may be worth taking into consideration.
Would you volunteer to have twice the dreadful commute for the benefit of your partner, or do you see yourself being the beneficiary of this configuration?
