Cycling and the recession

Obvious stuff, but I wonder if the current economic outlook has affected peoples cycling habits?

Do you ride more, less public transport, cars?
Buying cheaper tyres?
Not upgrading to that Aerospok you once wanted…

There are a couple of points in this blog that are quite true:

-Converting to a single-speed can reduce your yearly bike maintenance costs
-Maintaining your own bike has significant cost savings
-Not buying the ‘whiz bang’ components, but the reliable ones. ie, Vittoria Rubino vs a Schwalbe Ultremo…
Or Dura Ace 7900 vs Shimano 105…

Working in a bike shop, there are definitely a lot more people repairing old bikes rather than buying new ones. That said, there’s also been quite a big increase in cheap commuter bike sales. I think for many cyclists, the addiction rules over all. Lean times probably just mean we eat less.

As for me, I’ll be spending K-Rudd’s 900 on a new frame I reckon.

I think for many cyclists, the addiction rules over all.

i wont buy clothes that i need, but i’ll buy bike shit without hesitation.

clarify ‘recession’?? 2 quarters of negative growth makes us technically in a recession, and 2 years of negative growth puts us in a depression…
but consumer spending hasnt really been changed all that much.
1800 jobs overall have been lost in the last quarter (55,000 ft jobs lost with 53,000 pt jobs created. fin review 12/3).
the way unemployment is worked out is rigged, as it counts only ft employees of the ‘labour force’ vs the ‘working population’. and doesnt take into account things like pt, casual, etc.

personally, the only thing I’ve felt from this ‘recession’ people say we’re in is better fuel prices, lower interest rates, cheaper food from the lower interest rates and fuel prices, and generally, an easier life style.

you shouldnt all of a sudden be sensible with your money just because some croney says we’re in a recession.
spend more, it’ll keep the economy ticking over, and the good people at chinalco can continue to cash in on our stupidity.

Well put. I enjoy your ideas where can I subscribe to your newsletter?

I wish you’d spend it on clothes personally, you’re bringing down the property values of the area.

whoa, that is way ‘to enlightened’ for this board

I wish you’d spend it on clothes personally, you’re bringing down the property values of the area.

Agree. Judging from the media and politicians you would think people are back to queueing for loaves of bread.

ive just been buying a heap more because of all the great sales.
ill take a ‘recession’ anymday

I don’t get it, most people are better off assuming they keep their jobs, which the fair majority will. With interest rates so low the majorities disposable income has increased, let alone uncle Kev’s free cash.

But the media is bleating like were queuing for bread again, were very lucky here so far. . . No printing of money.

a little off topic but how do you know if your elegable for krudds cash?

Another thing is… it is up to $900 so please don’t spend the money before it is in your account like I know a lot of people are doing.

If your taxable income from 2007-2008 is under 80k it’ll be 900 bucks. If you haven’t done your tax return you wont get it. Also you wont get it if you earned under 11k.

I think there is an amnesty to submit your 07-08 return by the end of the financial year

ahh damn i didnt earn 11k -.- no new frame for me

As a demographic I think the boomers are the ones who will suffer the most during the GFC (and by suffer I mean bring them back to an equal footing with the rest of Australia). A lot of them want to retire now and have found that their super has been halved. Can’t say I’m sorry as I think they had too much to begin with (don’t get me started on how they’ve unfairly gained off the back of Australia’s environment and society). This will be interesting as many try to unload their overpriced houses onto the market to make up for the shortfall in their super. Then if the deck of cards falls (as it is doing if you watch the decrease in housing clearance rates recently) they’ll find that the difference between the book value and realisable sale value of an asset like a house can be quite large indeed!

What you say is true about not overreacting to this recession, and the government’s spin-doctoring.

But the reality is that you are one of the lucky ones- I have been affected, and I know at least a dozen people who have been made redundant, lost hours, had a reduction in pay etc. Sure, I am in the building/construction/design sector and this has been hit really hard. Other industries have not been hit at all (I imagine Velocity might be hiring staff to bend the new B43!)

This recession is real. And it might get a lot worse.

And it isn’t even a recession yet.

What do you mean by rigged?
The unemployment rate as calculated by the ABS considers anyone who spent at least one hour in paid work in the previous week as employed. The problem here is that it does not include part time/casual workers who want more work, but this is explicit. Is this the problem?

The labour force is the sum of employed and unemployed people. All people over 15 not fitting into these two categories are considered as not in the labour force. This is reasonable as you shouldn’t consider someone unemployed if they aren’t looking for work.

If you calculate the unemployement rate of the working population you get 0%… how will this be a better measure?

im not being discriminating here, just trying to put a point across. so please dont take offence I wasnt having a go at anyone. and i apologise in advance for the long post.

theres 3 parts to unemployment population:
the total population
the working population is all those people who are able to work.
the labour force, which is comprised of employed and unemployed (which is different to those that can work) in the working population. the unemployment rate is calculated on the participation rate of ft workers of the labour force, not of the working population.

if people choose not to work they are still unemployed. but this is not taken into account, even though they may be accepting welfare - ie, single mothers on a pension, early retirees (not only self funded), volunteer carers, etc. these people are able to work, but for various reasons do not.
not to mention part time and casual are also not included.
maybe rigged was the wrong term, but the system is perverted to some extent. prior to the early 80s there was no uniform way of determining unemployment, so this system was designed, yet it is flawed…

all im saying is that the real unemployment level is much higher, and govt’s dont want to change it for fear of consumer spending reductions and public backlash

as for recession, i’ve had my hours cut, i know plenty of people who’ve been forced 10% pay reductions, 20% hour reductions, but i dont consider this a recession.

No offence taken, and I’m not meaning to be offensive either.

Technically, no they are not unemployed. The problem with the current method of calculating the unemployment rate is that it ignores those people who have been without work for a longer term, and have given up looking. These are known as discouraged workers.

The labour force participation rate measures the percentage of the total adult population of Australia that is in the labour force. This is not used in calculating unemployment. The calculation is unemployed/labourforce.