By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
A week ago, Robert Hansen penned an opinion piece, “Driving is a Right Not a Privilege,” and it deals with an overall issue of fines and fees—and one problem that advocates and, increasingly, state and local governments have learned is that imposing excessive fines and fees on citizens to help fund portions of government is really counterproductive.
Moreover, an increasing number of states have recognized just how vital a driver’s license is to the economic survival of working class people. Many states have done away with losing a driver’s license as a penalty for non-payment of fines and fees for that very reason.
When I interviewed Joanna Weiss of the Fines and Fees Justice Center, she pointed out exactly why losing a driver’s license so is so devastating to working class people.
“First of all in most places, there is simply not the public transportation system to access your basic needs without a driver’s license,” she said. “This is not how this country is built, it is a driving country and most places outside of big cities, you just simply can’t [be without a license].”
She also noted that roughly one-third of jobs in this country require a valid driver’s license.
“So even if you could take a bus to work, you will lose your job,” she said.
Not only is public transportation spotty in terms of coverage, it adds a long period of time to a work day, and it can be quite costly.
One of the problems with inner cities and the concentration of poverty is that they have become job deserts. That means, to work, many people have to take jobs far away from where they live.
For instance, this AP article noted, “When Alison Norris couldn’t find work in Detroit, she searched past the city limits, ending up with a part-time restaurant job that’s 20 miles away but takes at least two hours to get to via separate city and suburban bus systems.”
I was listening to one interview with a person in a similar circumstance, and they eventually just quit their job because not only was it taking hours of commute to get to the job, but by the time they paid transportation costs, the job didn’t pay enough to be worth it.
Imagine even if you are lucky enough to work in California where low-wage jobs pay upwards of $15 per hour, and you have to end up paying $20 to commute, that’s more than 20 percent of your take home pay for an eight-hour job. That means before you pay for rent or other bills, you are taking 20 percent off your pay just for transportation to work.
This is the same dilemma we have for climate change. We need to drastically reduce the consumption of fossil fuels and move our vehicles away from single occupancy, fossil fuel based vehicles. But how do you do that in a society with the income inequality that exists in America?
In an ideal world, high gas taxes and high gas costs lead to alternatives becoming more economically viable—and yes, we need to shift away from the consumption of gas.
One of our readers had it right: “The problem with trying to solve global warming on the supply side is that the economic pain can be too great for the voters to handle.”
I would actually phrase it slightly differently—for working class people, the economic pain of high gas prices is just as devastating as the pain of losing a driver’s license.
Climate change is, in my view, the biggest threat that we face to our existence on this planet right now. I absolutely believe that this nation has not taken the issue as seriously as it should.
At the same time, it is a very tricky issue to deal with, because of how potential solutions will disparately impact people.
It sounds reasonable to argue that politicians are talking out of both sides of their mouth when they attempt to address climate change on the one hand and yet, at the same time, provide ways to subsidize the cost of gas.
The problem is ignoring that trade off has not only political, but also moral consequences.
The political consequences are simple: gas prices go too high, voters will vote the party seen as responsible for it out of office.
Or to put it into real terms, Democrats like Joe Biden and Gavin Newsom have a real problem because, while they recognize that climate change is a serious crisis, they also recognize if gas prices rise, the voters will revolt and return Donald Trump or someone like Donald Trump to office, and Trump’s four years in office likely set climate change policies back by a decade.
While the political calculation can be looked at rather cynically, I think the moral dimension is important to bear in mind. The relatively affluent, with the ability to pay more for gas, buy alternative-fueled vehicles, or even live close enough to be able to bike or use the bus efficiently, and that turns this into a class issue as much as an environmental issue.
The people pushing for alternatives are the people who do not depend on cars for their livelihoods. Working class whites have increasingly turned away from the Democratic party for a lot of reasons, but this is a big one—the Democrats are seen rightly or wrongly as the party of the elite and no longer the party of the white working class.
If we are going to solve the crisis of climate change, we are going to need to address income equality not only at home, but in the world. That’s a real challenge and one that we are not prepared to even discuss, let alone address.
She also noted that roughly one-third of jobs in this country, require a valid driver’s license.
“So even if you could take a bus to work, you will lose your job,” she said.
This is either inaccurate or deliberately misleading to support the intent of the argument presented. Current and long-standing labor law does not require a driver’s license as a condition of employment, except when operating a motor vehicle is part of the job responsibility.
Open to question is the unsupported assertion made in this article that 33 percent of all jobs in the United States require the employee to operate a vehicle while employed.
Joanna is an expert on this, and would know to be honest. However, I did find this: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/06/no-drivers-license-no-job/486653/
Those jobs are literally everywhere, and do not require much of a “commute”. They’re begging for these types of employees all over the state, and are also offering signing bonuses.
Then, there’s issues such as this (which I posted yesterday:)
So there you go. Those who advocate this type of approach are endangering the health of the very people who they claim to be looking out for. Assuming that these areas are also “poor”.
In addition, Just because someone is “poor”, that doesn’t given them the right to break laws that everyone else has to follow.
Those laws exist to protect others, including registration, smog, insurance, and safety equipment requirements.
In addition, this is really just another subsidy for employers who don’t pay their employees a sufficient wage to live on. And in this case, it’s at the expense of the safety of others. Many of these type of jobs aren’t intended to be a “career” in the first place. If you’re making $15/hour after a couple of years (with no other plans), there’s something wrong with YOU or those plans.
This article (which essentially encourages greenhouse gasses) does not take the issue as seriously as it should.
There’s a concept called a jobs desert. Privileged white people don’t understand, but working class people often have to travel far to get jobs. That’s why in inner cities, the jobless rate is sometimes over 50 percent.
Example from the article:
That’s not limited to Detroit.
The same problem in Chicago: https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/ct-edit-xproject3a-jobs-1020-20131020-story.html
Job deserts are a thing. That’s why so many people are struggling.
Always a solid, outright racist “go to” argument. Which for some reason, is acceptable to some people (not to me).
Two “terrific” cities.
This is not the case in most of California.
But let me repeat something, here, as your type of arguments are irrelevant to the main issue:
(Not to even mention the impacts of climate change, as a result of subsidizing driving.)
Here’s another idea: Obey the law, and you won’t have any problem in the first place. Most drivers do this, already.
The ones breaking the law frequently enough to have a problem are the very same people who shouldn’t be driving a two-ton vehicle in the first place. Have you ever looked at the accident statistics regarding those who do, anyway?
I learned something today. Apparently, priviliged white people are stupid. So stupid they can’t understand such a simple concept. Not only racist but stupid. Thanks much appreciate the edumacation.
Thereby endangering the lives of those in those very same communities, once again. In addition to extraordinary levels of pollution in those communities, as noted in the article I posted above.
This article (starting with the title) conflates the so-called “right to drive” with income, and claims that the “right” exists based upon income. It then goes on to conflate environmental concerns with the “right to drive”.
For that matter, it conflates safety issues (as a result of driving) with the price of gas. (Requirements such as following traffic laws, registration, smog, insurance, safety equipment, etc.).
The entire advocacy behind this type of article is a jumbled mess which conflicts with its own stated goals.
Ultimately, as seen in “Craig’s” comment, it’s really about racial issues (for those who think like him), which takes precedence above all other issues for those who think like him. These folks see traffic laws as “systemic racism”.
They also think that skin color should determine whether or not you should legally be allowed to endanger the lives of others on the road, and contribute as much greenhouse gasses as the government is willing to subsidize for them.
This isn’t just a racial issue. About 20 percent of the US population lives in rural areas. Most rural areas have limited job opportunities. Again, why the unemployment and poverty rates are so high. It’s not a huge percentage of the population, but it’s still millions of people trapped into low wage jobs and unsustainable commuting costs.
There’s vast differences between different rural areas.
Well, earlier – you were crying about the people in Detroit and Chicago.
If that’s even true regarding (some) rural areas – move closer, and get yourself a better job. And follow the traffic laws that everyone else has to follow.
If they’re “trapped in a low wage job” as you state, that the (and their) problem in the first place.
You’re referring to an imbalance between income vs expenses in general, not just those associated with driving.
Move closer says the guy who opposes housing…. Got it. You have no empathy for people who you can’t relate to.
They don’t have to move to San Francisco, do they?
You’re referring to a much broader problem than the cost of driving. A basic imbalance between income vs. expenses.
The cost of driving is only one aspect of that.
Lots of people are dealing with that, these days. Of course, some people also feel that it’s their “right” to spend money on things they can’t afford (and ultimately, that also includes the cost of having kids – which they increasingly want the government to support via various “child care” coverages, etc.). This by no means is limited to “poor” people.
But the last thing that the government should be subsidizing is the cost of driving. Especially for those who already demonstrate a propensity to flout traffic laws.
Does the city make people crazy, or do crazy people move to the city? As you look across California and all the homelessness and all the crime this is a no-brainer
If I was given the choice of living in the middle of the Arizona desert making $6 an hour or working in the middle of San Francisco making 30 bucks an hour I think I would choose the middle of the Arizona desert making $6 an hour.
Though I don’t think the difference is that extreme, it does seem like people are finally catching on to that reality.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/californias-shrinking-population-has-big-impacts/ar-AAW3N5T?li=BBnbfcL
So apparently, it’s turning into “my kind of state”. I’m starting to like it, after all!
Maybe you and I should run for office, as you suggested.
I believe that’s called communism. I’m not saying that flippantly, is not the idea that everyone makes the same amount of money a tenant of communist theory?
It’s definitely a tenet, but given what we know of Russia, other ‘communist’ countries, George Orwell had it right… when it comes to making the same amount of money, “some animals are more equal than others”… very painfully obvious…
Theory, tenets, are one thing… but execution (or ‘executions’, in the Ukraine) is quite another…
Yet many folk worry about what go on @ certain ‘animal farms’, but ignore others…
Socialism is similar… cool in theory, not so much in execution… ‘capitalism’ is also cool in theory, but we’ve seen how that goes in the execution of those tenets, also…
No answers, just observations…
There’s your opportunity for “redevelopment”. And yet, it never seems to change (in some cities, at least). In fact, it seems to have gotten worse in some cities.
Of course, you end up pricing-out some people (once again), as a result of redevelopment.
How about if we just outlaw being “poor”? 🙂
In any case, we can’t even stop wars (which aren’t necessarily based upon wealth or lack thereof).
Five comment rule is in effect. Please monitor your own comment count.
For thought by the VG board… (i.e., not a “Moderation” issue per se)…
If you have a foot fungus on one toe (or a few), do you treat it with whole-body chemo, or whole-body radiation?
Yes, I accept that this comment (my first on this thread), will be deleted or held in suspension by ‘moderation’, or insinuating, something against the ‘moderation policies’… a Mortal Sin… I ‘get’ that latter referent…
With a question like that, it seems that they don’t treat it at all.
Or, are you referring to something like the following?
All from the same fungus.
I’d say that the real question is whether or not some areas will need many low-wage workers at all. Increasingly replaced by automation, “efficiency” efforts, etc. Especially if they have to pay a significant wage in higher-cost locales.
There was an article in The Chronicle yesterday which discussed the lack of rehiring of hotel workers, even as the hotel industry starts to recover from the pandemic. And that there’s a concerted effort to reduce those costs, and to “reimagine” the industry and those costs (my wording, borrowed from a different movement).
A commenter noted that the hotel industry seems to be following the pattern set by the airline industry (e.g., cutting back amenities to keep costs in check while maintaining profit).
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/joegarofoli/article/San-Francisco-s-tourists-are-returning-but-17068235.php
So if there’s ever something like Universal Basic Income established, it seems likely that folks who depend upon it will end up living in the Arizona desert, regardless of whether or not it’s also a “jobs desert” (or even a “civilization desert”). Is that “just desserts”? (Not sure, but the spelling of those two words always makes me double-check.)
And despite contrasting that with “jobs desert” (and taking a stab at the spelling based upon that), I still apparently got the spelling wrong. (Just checked.)
I believe I was thinking of a business establishment, which just serves “desserts”.
No low-wage spell check job for me in the future, it seems. (But that’s already been replaced by automation, as well.)
Banished to the desert (or dessert), I guess.
Just move! Banish the desert!
What color is the sky in your world, RO?
You think a person would live in a slum if they could move out of one whenever they wanted?
I do not.
Hey – since they have a car (and a guaranteed driver’s license regardless of driving record, along with cheap/subsidized gas – per what this article advocates) – can they just live in that? Save on rent, as well.
They can join all the students reportedly sleeping in Safeway parking lots. Or use that car to move out to the Arizona desert.
I’ve forgotten – are we talking about coal miners in West Virginia at this point, or those living in inner-cities?
Just rattling your cage, at this point.
I perused Ron O’s comments before I logged in so I can ignore him going forward. As usual they are mostly wrong while relying on out of context anecdotes. I can’t take the time to address the numerous errors and they should simply be dismissed. (It doesn’t help that he is unwilling to acknowledge corrections when they are pointed out.) And as usual, he doesn’t offer any actual solutions to the problem, which in this case is the lack of well paying jobs for those who live in poor communities and can’t afford to move where they have no social network to help support them.
You could have just ignored them in the first place, as you previously claimed to.
Now, there’s a logical argument.
Glad to, and already noted my error regarding deserts, vs. desserts.
No disagreement from me. However, the “solution” being advocated on here (to subsidize the cost of gas, and ensure that irresponsible drivers have a “right” to keep driving) doesn’t sound like much of a “solution”, to me.
Depends upon the cost to move, and how much stuff you have. In any case, isn’t the “problem” that they can’t afford to stay where they are, given the lack of “well-paying jobs” in some locales that you just mentioned?
Though as previously noted – those are also the locations which are ripe for redevelopment. Assuming it doesn’t price more people out, as it usually does.
Lots of people have no “social network” to locations that they move to. And yet, many do, regardless. In fact, everyone in this country has ancestors that came from “somewhere else”. Suck it up, buttercup.
Just happened upon this:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/28-cars-towed-after-operation-against-sideshows-in-sacramento-on-sunday/ar-AAW6LZu?li=BBnbfcL
“But your honor, I need that car (and my license) to get to work”.
There shouldn’t be any suburbs. There shouldn’t be any quiet, clean, peaceful neighborhoods. There shouldn’t be any freedom or autonomy. Everyone should be forced to live in a large city, crammed together in giant apartment buildings containing hundreds of tiny apartments. The only method of travel, other than walking, should be public transportation, where everyone is herded like cattle, at times and routes of the government’s choosing and be forced to eat vegan diets and slathering yourself with patchouli oil while being forced to listen to the Grateful Dead and inhaling second-hand organically grown non-GMO weed.