TV show- Extreme Cheapskates
- Thread starter kathryn d
- Start date
You could say the same for every single European country.
Actually, the UK is less car dependent than most. They have less cars per capita than Italy, France, Germany, Spain, etc..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita
You claimed suburban sprawl and car dependency was the culprit behind obesity. The UK has neither of those (less so than many of their European counterparts) yet they're just as overweight as Americans or Australians.
You also claim that medium density public transport-friendly living makes people more active. The British are very inactive despite having both of these. More inactive than either Australia or the US.
Any why list UK cities by car dependency without comparing them to mainland European cities?
No, poor people existed 20 years ago. If you look at obesity/weight statistics, you'll also notice that overweight and obese people existed too.
We have been getting larger and larger every decade since junk food became affordable. I'm 30 and I remember a LOT of overweight children from my childhood. In my mother's time is was uncommon because the cost of junk food was prohibitive. Children are now even more overweight and obese than they were when I was a child as junk food has only gotten more affordable and the culture of eating junk food on a daily basis more accepted.
A lot of those overweight children I went to school with are now those obese adults we hear about it statistics. Likewise, some of those skinny children my mother went to school with 50 years ago are now obese adults.
Lower socioecomonic groups are the most likely be overweight or obese just as they're more likely to drink heavily or smoke cigarettes. It's just a fact in Australia.
Even within one city, compare two suburbs with iffy public transport - one which is a middle class to wealthy suburb, the other being a low income suburb - which do you think will be heavier on average?
Also, you're wrong about rich people intrinsically wanting to live in walkable areas. A few decades ago our inner city areas were considered undesirable and wealthier types were flocking to the safety of the suburbs. The inner city is trendy thanks to 'gentrification' and several property booms, but it wasn't always so.
In the US, some cities followed our pattern of inner city gentrification whilst others had the doughnut effect - the wealthy fled to the suburbs leaving the inner city a ghetto. In some US cities, the last thing you'd want to do is 'walk' it
A study that says that being more active burns more calories than being inactive? Remarkable.
The format is annoying but if you flick through the slideshow it has Turkey and Italy (2 countries you used as examples of active nations) making the top 25 least active countries. Neither the US or Australia got a shout out. Malta, Spain, Portugal and the UK also made the list - all medium density countries.
All very good points re: travel times and lack of amenities. This is what happens when suburbs are poorly planned.
This is where you and I differ - you don't want outer suburbs, I want outer suburbs improved.
I used to live in Thornbury and my mother lived in Prahran. It would take us between 1-1/2 and 2 hours EACH WAY to visit one another on public transport (neither of us drove). Both of those suburbs were within 10kms on the CBD and we'd spend up to 4 hours travelling just to spend a few hours together. You cannot convince me that putting more people in the inner city will improve quality of life for anyone.
I've lived in inner city suburbs for most of my life - Prahran, Elwood, St Kilda, Elsternwick, Thornbury, so on. Towards the end I couldn't take it any more.
The traffic congestion was a nightmare, you were lucky if you could even fit on a peak hour train, the air was polluted as hell, the houses were a million dollars, the people were overly image obsessed and the children weren't allowed to play outside because of peadophiles (chronic helicopter parenting). (EDIT: Sorry for the personal rant, I just trying to illustrate that inner city living is actually detrimental to some people).
But, yes, I agree that more thought needs to be put into planning new suburbs and established suburbs need improving (both inner and outer).
Last edited:
I'm just guessing here but I think it could be due to the fact the population in the UK (like Australia) is more centralised whereas other countries you listed are less so.
Then why are people in London the least obese of all UK cities? I'm sure the availability of public transport makes a big difference.
Junk food is overrated in terms of weight gain. I know so many overweight people who can go on and on about the calories in chocolate, donuts and other "junk" food yet have no issues with downing three glasses of wine in one sitting which not only has more calories than any of the above things they're against but also is more inhibiting of weight loss as well. Apparently, carbs like rice are so evil as well yet it features heavily in the diet of people in say Japan who are amongst the longest living in the world.
You can eat whatever you like (within reason) and still remain of healthy weight if you're active. It is a lot harder and requires a lot more restrictions to be of healthy weight by continuing to be inactive and just modifying your diet.
I'm sure education and "culture" play a role to an extent but it seems that it overwhelmingly comes down to lack of incidental activity in everyday life.
Can you provide me an example of a middle class to wealthy suburb in Australia which is poorly planned (overwhelmingly single use) and has no or limited public transport. I am struggling to think of an example.
A few decades ago, a lot of today's "outer suburbs" didn't exist. The "safety of the suburbs" is only possible due to ample and cheap petrol. Remove that and we will have a big disaster on our hands.
Not all suburbs are equal as well. There are some places like Toronto (where my husband grew up), which has a great commuter rail system and is very heavily patronised to the point of having among the highest fare box recovery rate in the world.In the US, some cities followed our pattern of inner city gentrification whilst others had the doughnut effect - the wealthy fled to the suburbs leaving the inner city a ghetto. In some US cities, the last thing you'd want to do is 'walk' it
He has shown me pictures of suburbs which are considered "far" from the centre and less desireable and IMO, these would be regarded as premium real estate in Australia due to the nature of zoning/planning in these areas.
That list seemed a bit pointless. I'm not sure about the merits of including poor, third world countries in a list about inactivity. Their lifestyle and priorities would be so different to us as to be an almost absurd comparison. It really should have be limited to developed nations to be more valuable.
Balwyn, Beaumaris, Warrandyte, Doncaster, Ivanhoe East, etc. are all largely car reliant and middle class to wealthy.
Every city in Australia has equivalent suburbs.
People in these suburbs eat less, eat more healthily and are more active than their counterparts in poorer areas even when public transport is on par.
cimbom, how do you explain 2 areas 8 km from the CBD, one with great transport showing one of the highest rates of obesity, smoking and related health problems, including life expectancy {this is prior to the major gentrification and the relocation of welfare dependent people that occurred in the area} and the other with not quite as great transport boasting some of the most healthy people in the state - saw government stats and took note of these at the time because of this stark difference.
The areas are Burnside, eastern suburbs, and the Kilburn areas in the inner north of SA.
Lots of examples of this within suburbs too, and i'm sure right across Australia.
The areas are Burnside, eastern suburbs, and the Kilburn areas in the inner north of SA.
Lots of examples of this within suburbs too, and i'm sure right across Australia.
Last edited:
Bump..
Just looked at this on the No. 1 Aussie Cheapskate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBaigBih23w
I am going to confess to one cheapskate habit I have, my children make fun of me doing this, unless they need one.
I save unmarked stamps. Amazing how many stamps I collect and reuse each month, I think I must be saving at least $1.40 per month
Anyone else saving a fortune like me, please share
Just looked at this on the No. 1 Aussie Cheapskate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBaigBih23w
I am going to confess to one cheapskate habit I have, my children make fun of me doing this, unless they need one.
I save unmarked stamps. Amazing how many stamps I collect and reuse each month, I think I must be saving at least $1.40 per month
Anyone else saving a fortune like me, please share
As we consume ourselves off the planet, first world society generally still regards someone who will re-use and up cycle as being a bit of a nutter. To me this seems to be a view that is made popular by those who will benefit the most financially from the constant need for people to be seen with new stuff and not be labelled a cheapskate. We don't applaud such behavior and show extreme versions of it to further demonise those who do it.
Driving around Perth it is amazing to see what gets left on the verge for the council to pick up. A visit to any developing country will show how nothing is wasted.
A 20 minute video on the "story of stuff" is a great eye opener for those who haven't seen it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GorqroigqM
Driving around Perth it is amazing to see what gets left on the verge for the council to pick up. A visit to any developing country will show how nothing is wasted.
A 20 minute video on the "story of stuff" is a great eye opener for those who haven't seen it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GorqroigqM
My husband and I were having this discussion this week.
People throw away perfectly good items, along with items that may be broken, but still have some value in their spare parts.
We are guilty of this as well, many times.
Back in the Great Depression, the amount of rubbish generated would never have happened. It truly would have been reduce, reuse, recycle.
Now everyone has too much money..and still cry poor.
