[nemo44x]

The main reason is because Americans are unbelievably wealthy and can afford large homes that require multiple cars for the family to get around. It’s a positive sign of American prosperity and the envy of the world hence the massive immigration demand and relative lack of expatriatism.

If America gets to a point where that’s no longer possible and people have to live in smaller and more densely populated areas not by choice but by necessity then the country is truly in decline.

Let the Germans cram themselves into smaller homes and trains. I truly hope Americans can continue to prosper and acquire comfortable homes with more utility and private transport powered by cheap energy for all.

[insane_dreamer]

That’s a nice but false narrative. The Swiss are wealthier than the Americans and yet they use public transport extensively.

[lolc]

Good public infra is wealth with much higher utility than private infra.

[nemo44x]

Roads are public infra. I agree they should be kept in good order.

[lolc]

In general yes. In particular some roads provide negative utility and should be closed or not built.

[occz]

This reads like satire, but I'm not sure that it is and it's frightening me a bit.

[nemo44x]

What’s satirical about it? Why would people want a world where they are forced to live on top of each other in small places if they don’t have to due to plentiful energy and vast material wealth?

If some new age Protestant needs to live worse to fulfill some spiritual hole then they can do it. But everyone else wants a large yard, comfortable home with many rooms, nice cars, and well maintained infrastructure to drive and park.

[consteval]

Because living further apart means more driving, which sucks? And it means less community, which sucks? And it means you'll be fatter and die earlier, which sucks?

I'm not saying those are 100% true. I'm saying those are reasons and I can think of much, much more.

There's pros and cons to everything.