[triceratops]

> The sooner we force middle class people and up move to EVs—which they can afford to do—the sooner we can create a robust market for used EVs for the bottom quantile.

Completely agree.

> And in the lowest income quantile, households spend over $6,000 per year on transportation.

And that's a much bigger impact on personal finances, proportionately, than higher-income people.

> because the alternative is paying much more money in rent and losing the flexibility to pursue job opportunities in different places

Because that's how American cities are built. Destroy yourself financially (and healthwise - 1h/day in the car is awful) driving, suffer through terribly long commutes on a bus route that drives everywhere, or rent shitty "luxury" shoeboxes near work. I agree it's not practical to fix it in the short-term. I just resent middle- and upper-middle class people opposing government incentives to switch to EVs because "it'll hurt the poor". Like no, the poor are screwed either way, you just don't want to pay up.

[rayiner]

> Because that's how American cities are built

It’s not just “American cities.” Even in Tokyo—which has transit better than what Americans could ever aspire to build—getting around on public transit takes much longer than driving. And it can take even longer if you change jobs and your workplace is no longer near the same train like as your previous workplace. Even with Tokyo’s amazing infrastructure, people using public transit there don’t have as much geographic flexibility in finding jobs and housing as my wife’s lower income family members in rural Oregon and Idaho.

[triceratops]

> getting around on public transit takes much longer than driving [in Tokyo]

Citation needed.

"People in Tokyo have less flexibility in finding jobs compared to rural Oregon".

Citation strongly needed. The sheer volume of jobs and opportunity in Tokyo simply bears no comparison to Oregon or Idaho.