4 ms·

I've become very skeptical of any plan to just get rid of something that people need and use, in the hope that that will magically force the issue and usher cre

by mwfunk 10y ago

I've become very skeptical of any plan to just get rid of something that people need and use, in the hope that that will magically force the issue and usher credible alternatives into existence years down the line. It's sort of like a government trying to reduce government spending by cutting taxes (i.e., the "don't feed the beast" approach). Such efforts never end up reducing spending, rather they just create an environment in which debt and chaos are constantly increasing. I get the idea behind it- "let's just start doing everything according to our desired outcome, and the parts that don't fit will somehow come into line on their own". It's very seductive but I've learned to avoid the temptation to think that hard problems can be solved in this way. I feel like this is a problem-solving antipattern that I see over and over again and it just never works- not just in government, but in software engineering, in management, even in interpersonal relationships. People get frustrated that they can't change other people, so they decide to simply move everyone to some new way of doing things without any sort of plan for how to deal with the fallout. They think it will create an environment where the people who are negatively affected will spontaneously start conforming to the desired behavior due to some invisible hand of incentivization, but I've never seen this strategy applied in any context where it worked out. It's always just a rat's nest of unintended consequences and misery.

ethanbond 10y ago
It's not really the same at all to your tax analog. The difference is that Congress has the ability to reduce spending and to cut taxes. With the car problem, no one entity has the power to devise nor enforce a holistic solution. Of course, with the exception of a fascist overthrow of the state that tears down cities and rebuilds with central planning. The government can't just come and take people's cars away – you have a right to own a car (more or less). You don't, however, have a right to a parking spot, and it takes just a small city committee meeting to affect change. That's not to say people won't get hurt by this, but it needs to happen for the good of everyone. Suburbia is bad for the earth and everyone on it. We need to start making some tough decisions... 30 years ago.
- superuser2 10y ago
  >no one entity has the power to devise nor enforce a holistic solution Yes there is - the city government that controls the parking spaces, also controls the transit system.
  - ethanbond 10y ago
    And it controls infinite amounts of money? As I've said in other comments, I'm all for investing heavily in transit infrastructure. If you want a solution that totally ignores the fiscal reality of the world, then yes, I agree, dumping massive amounts of money into public transit would be part of it.
    - superuser2 10y ago
      Where is the fiscal reality in grinding a city's economic activity to a halt because people can't get anywhere?
      - ethanbond 10y ago
        Cities can, have, and do function with fewer cars than most American cities. Reducing parking is the fairest way to reduce the usage and eventually necessity of cars. And again, it's far more realistic than hoping that a transit authority is going to find a buried treasure chest to invest in infrastructure while the public is investing more and more into cars.
        briandear 10y ago
        Let's eliminate cars. How does one transport a week's worth of groceries for a family of 5 on public transport? Transportation is more than moving a person from A to B. If you want a real solution, provide tax incentives for companies to work remotely. If you eliminate commuters in those types of jobs that can work remotely, you solve almost all traffic problems. Does an insurance salesman really need to travel to an office? 90% of that work is on the phone already and the other 10% could be replaced with video conferencing. I don't need to touch my salesman, I just need to hear what he's saying and read contracts. Unless your job involves handling physical objects, there is zero reason for a commute.

by mwfunk 10y ago

ethanbond 10y ago

It's not really the same at all to your tax analog. The difference is that Congress has the ability to reduce spending and to cut taxes. With the car problem, no one entity has the power to devise nor enforce a holistic solution. Of course, with the exception of a fascist overthrow of the state that tears down cities and rebuilds with central planning. The government can't just come and take people's cars away – you have a right to own a car (more or less). You don't, however, have a right to a parking spot, and it takes just a small city committee meeting to affect change. That's not to say people won't get hurt by this, but it needs to happen for the good of everyone. Suburbia is bad for the earth and everyone on it. We need to start making some tough decisions... 30 years ago.

superuser2 10y ago
>no one entity has the power to devise nor enforce a holistic solution Yes there is - the city government that controls the parking spaces, also controls the transit system.
- ethanbond 10y ago
  And it controls infinite amounts of money? As I've said in other comments, I'm all for investing heavily in transit infrastructure. If you want a solution that totally ignores the fiscal reality of the world, then yes, I agree, dumping massive amounts of money into public transit would be part of it.
  - superuser2 10y ago
    Where is the fiscal reality in grinding a city's economic activity to a halt because people can't get anywhere?
    - ethanbond 10y ago
      Cities can, have, and do function with fewer cars than most American cities. Reducing parking is the fairest way to reduce the usage and eventually necessity of cars. And again, it's far more realistic than hoping that a transit authority is going to find a buried treasure chest to invest in infrastructure while the public is investing more and more into cars.
      - briandear 10y ago
        Let's eliminate cars. How does one transport a week's worth of groceries for a family of 5 on public transport? Transportation is more than moving a person from A to B. If you want a real solution, provide tax incentives for companies to work remotely. If you eliminate commuters in those types of jobs that can work remotely, you solve almost all traffic problems. Does an insurance salesman really need to travel to an office? 90% of that work is on the phone already and the other 10% could be replaced with video conferencing. I don't need to touch my salesman, I just need to hear what he's saying and read contracts. Unless your job involves handling physical objects, there is zero reason for a commute.