4 ms·

Yes, poor people tend to have rigid work schedules. If congestion pricing were implemented, employers would have to be more flexible or pay their workers more.

by natrius 11y ago

Yes, poor people tend to have rigid work schedules. If congestion pricing were implemented, employers would have to be more flexible or pay their workers more. Would those jobs that people couldn't afford to take just disappear? We shouldn't subsidize the usage of road space just because some employers enjoy it. Congestion pricing isn't a tax. Its intent isn't to raise funds. You could rebate all of the revenue to low income folks and still achieve the goal of eliminating traffic. Congestion pricing isn't regressive since it's easy to split the cost. If you want to pay less, ride with more people.

smtddr 11y ago
>>Yes, poor people tend to have rigid work schedules. If congestion pricing were implemented, employers would have to be more flexible or pay their workers more. The employer won't be more flexible nor will the salaries go up; what would happen is the employee would complain and the employer wouldn't care because they'd know there's someone out there who's so desperate for a job that they'll take the horrible situation.... e.g., the awful working conditions of a lot of immigrants.
s73v3r 11y ago
"If congestion pricing were implemented, employers would have to be more flexible or pay their workers more. " That will never, ever fucking happen. Employers don't give a shit. "Congestion pricing isn't regressive since it's easy to split the cost." That has absolutely nothing to do with it being regressive. It's regressive because it disproportionately affects poor people.
- natrius 11y ago
  Employers are subject to market forces just like everyone else. If they need workers in order to make money, but workers can't afford to get to work, they will pay more money. Not by choice, by necessity. If you don't believe that, fine. Just raise the minimum wage instead. Subsidizing the usage of road space is a terrible solution to the problem you're describing. Road space is scarce. Poor people get less scarce goods. Luckily, road space is easy to share, which is what poor people do with scarce things. This is not an affront to the current order. There are plenty of things I want to pay for so poor people can have more of them. Road space is not one of them.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    "Employers are subject to market forces just like everyone else." Much, much less than the people you're targeting with these taxes. "Oh, you can't afford to drive to work now? You're fired. There's a line of people out the door who can and want a job." " If they need workers in order to make money, but workers can't afford to get to work, they will pay more money" No, they won't. They'll pick people up from the pile of applications they have, and try again. Rinse and repeat. " If you don't believe that, fine. Just raise the minimum wage instead." Or how about we just don't institute an extremely regressive tax scheme? Seriously, your lack of empathy for the very people you're going to attack with your plan is astounding.

by natrius 11y ago

smtddr 11y ago

>>Yes, poor people tend to have rigid work schedules. If congestion pricing were implemented, employers would have to be more flexible or pay their workers more. The employer won't be more flexible nor will the salaries go up; what would happen is the employee would complain and the employer wouldn't care because they'd know there's someone out there who's so desperate for a job that they'll take the horrible situation.... e.g., the awful working conditions of a lot of immigrants.

s73v3r 11y ago

"If congestion pricing were implemented, employers would have to be more flexible or pay their workers more. " That will never, ever fucking happen. Employers don't give a shit. "Congestion pricing isn't regressive since it's easy to split the cost." That has absolutely nothing to do with it being regressive. It's regressive because it disproportionately affects poor people.

natrius 11y ago
Employers are subject to market forces just like everyone else. If they need workers in order to make money, but workers can't afford to get to work, they will pay more money. Not by choice, by necessity. If you don't believe that, fine. Just raise the minimum wage instead. Subsidizing the usage of road space is a terrible solution to the problem you're describing. Road space is scarce. Poor people get less scarce goods. Luckily, road space is easy to share, which is what poor people do with scarce things. This is not an affront to the current order. There are plenty of things I want to pay for so poor people can have more of them. Road space is not one of them.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  "Employers are subject to market forces just like everyone else." Much, much less than the people you're targeting with these taxes. "Oh, you can't afford to drive to work now? You're fired. There's a line of people out the door who can and want a job." " If they need workers in order to make money, but workers can't afford to get to work, they will pay more money" No, they won't. They'll pick people up from the pile of applications they have, and try again. Rinse and repeat. " If you don't believe that, fine. Just raise the minimum wage instead." Or how about we just don't institute an extremely regressive tax scheme? Seriously, your lack of empathy for the very people you're going to attack with your plan is astounding.