4 ms·

> It's not a wealth transfer, it's just internalizing some externalities I'm wary of that argument, it can be used to justify just about anything. It's all too

by hugh4 11y ago

> It's not a wealth transfer, it's just internalizing some externalities I'm wary of that argument, it can be used to justify just about anything. It's all too easy to selectively internalise a politically unimportant group's externalities while letting others' remain external. Where are these millions of people supposed to move to, to be closer to work? Don't houses in DC start at around the seven-figure mark? People with children don't want to live in tiny apartments. How about we have a government which sees its job as helping people do what they want to do (ie live in big houses and get to their jobs which can't be relied upon to be within a one-mile radius) instead of one that tries to force people into its own vision of life?

WildUtah 11y ago
One policy innovation here is being tried in LA. With a $15 minimum wage you can drive away the jobs of the people who would be unable to pay their fare share for motorway space. Those jobs that can't pay $15 will simply relocate to small towns, the South, and rural areas far from LA. Those that can pay better will see workers paid more. Either way, the motorways clear up and motorists can afford to pay tolls that will cover externalities and eliminate gridlock. Every big city should be looking at a minimum wage at $15 or even $20. It makes life better for everyone.
simval 11y ago
Subsidizing big houses and overbuilding road networks while keeping them toll-free to allow people to live there while not losing access to jobs is actually the government forcing people into decision makers' own vision of life. That lifestyle was popular among the richest people, but it is extraordinarily expensive. As a result, you can only make it accessible to the middle-class by subsidies... but someone has to pay these subsidies. Not everyone can be a winner in the game of taxes and subsidies. So if you want to make that lifestyle more affordable, you are inherently saying that you are ready to make every other lifestyle LESS affordable by taxing them to provide the subsidies required to support your favored lifestyle. Even if you manage to get everyone into that lifestyle, you have moved a large part of the funding that goes into it from an optional price that people may or may not pay into a fixed price that everyone has to pay. In other words, just because someone chooses to opt out of that lifestyle doesn't free him from having to pay the cost associated to it. For example, let's look at plane tickets. Everyone wishes they could afford first class, but they can't. What would happen if governments decided to reduce the cost of first class tickets to make them more accessible? Well, a lot more people would opt for first class, and airlines would convert more and more of the plane to first class, which would only increase perpetually the amount of subsidies required to make first class more affordable. People who opt for economy class in the meanwhile wouldn't have access to these subsidies and would pay the full price of their tickets... AND pay the same taxes as people who buy first class tickets. So they pay taxes that reduce their purchasing power to subsidize first class ticket buyers, subsidies they can only access if they themselves opt for first class. Is this really a fair situation? That's basically what most of North America has been doing for 70 years. I'm not opposed to subsidies on principle, but I think subsidies need to fulfill social objectives that help society or make it more humane. How is subsidizing lifestyle choices that incur more costs, more waste and more pollution, to society helping to fulfill social objectives? If people want that lifestyle, fine, as long as they pay for it.
TheCoelacanth 11y ago
> Don't houses in DC start at around the seven-figure mark? No, houses in desirable neighborhoods start at seven figures. Housing prices are quite reasonable in most of the SE quadrant and large parts of the NE quadrant.

by hugh4 11y ago

WildUtah 11y ago

One policy innovation here is being tried in LA. With a $15 minimum wage you can drive away the jobs of the people who would be unable to pay their fare share for motorway space. Those jobs that can't pay $15 will simply relocate to small towns, the South, and rural areas far from LA. Those that can pay better will see workers paid more. Either way, the motorways clear up and motorists can afford to pay tolls that will cover externalities and eliminate gridlock. Every big city should be looking at a minimum wage at $15 or even $20. It makes life better for everyone.

simval 11y ago

Subsidizing big houses and overbuilding road networks while keeping them toll-free to allow people to live there while not losing access to jobs is actually the government forcing people into decision makers' own vision of life. That lifestyle was popular among the richest people, but it is extraordinarily expensive. As a result, you can only make it accessible to the middle-class by subsidies... but someone has to pay these subsidies. Not everyone can be a winner in the game of taxes and subsidies. So if you want to make that lifestyle more affordable, you are inherently saying that you are ready to make every other lifestyle LESS affordable by taxing them to provide the subsidies required to support your favored lifestyle. Even if you manage to get everyone into that lifestyle, you have moved a large part of the funding that goes into it from an optional price that people may or may not pay into a fixed price that everyone has to pay. In other words, just because someone chooses to opt out of that lifestyle doesn't free him from having to pay the cost associated to it. For example, let's look at plane tickets. Everyone wishes they could afford first class, but they can't. What would happen if governments decided to reduce the cost of first class tickets to make them more accessible? Well, a lot more people would opt for first class, and airlines would convert more and more of the plane to first class, which would only increase perpetually the amount of subsidies required to make first class more affordable. People who opt for economy class in the meanwhile wouldn't have access to these subsidies and would pay the full price of their tickets... AND pay the same taxes as people who buy first class tickets. So they pay taxes that reduce their purchasing power to subsidize first class ticket buyers, subsidies they can only access if they themselves opt for first class. Is this really a fair situation? That's basically what most of North America has been doing for 70 years. I'm not opposed to subsidies on principle, but I think subsidies need to fulfill social objectives that help society or make it more humane. How is subsidizing lifestyle choices that incur more costs, more waste and more pollution, to society helping to fulfill social objectives? If people want that lifestyle, fine, as long as they pay for it.

TheCoelacanth 11y ago

> Don't houses in DC start at around the seven-figure mark? No, houses in desirable neighborhoods start at seven figures. Housing prices are quite reasonable in most of the SE quadrant and large parts of the NE quadrant.