The article "How Low-Income Commuters View Cycling" explains that the poor use public transportation even more than the high-income commuters. Although high income commuters use public transportation, they don't use it for traveling but for commuting to larger cities. Cycling is also not appealing to anyone because they feel it's dangerous and not safe. These people simply want a car and if they can't afford they rather take public transportation rather than using a bike to commute. The environmental products advisements I found appeal both the low-income and the high-income people, especially the method soap ad because it has a rubber duck with three eyes and the ad says that method soap isn't toxic therefore it won't contaminate rivers and harm animals. Another ad I found was the water ad; it shows how they have reduced the amount of plastic used to make the bottle. This makes the consumer feel like they are reducing the amount of waste they use. The ads don't show caring for the environment as a luxury because the ad states, "We can all make a difference", but sometimes it can be a luxury to buy eco-friendly items. If you go to the store you can see eco-friendly products highly priced than the non-eco-friendly products. The ads trick the consumer into thinking that the items are not expensive but when you go to the store, low-income consumers realize that they can't afford it. Sometimes being eco-friendly may not harm the environment, but it may harm your wallet. The article "How low-Income Commuters View Cycling" explains that the poor use public transportation even more than the high-income commuters. Although high income commuters use public transportation, they don't use it for traveling but for commuting to larger cities. Cycling is also not appealing to anyone because they feel it's dangerous and not safe. These people simply want a car and if they can't afford they rather take public transportation rather than using a bike to commute.
