5 ms·

>If you put that money into a fund, you could pay every impoverished kid in the entire state $1,000 per year in perpetuity. Not saying I disagree with the rest

>If you put that money into a fund, you could pay every impoverished kid in the entire state $1,000 per year in perpetuity. Not saying I disagree with the rest of what you are saying, but if everyone thought that way then nothing would ever get done. Infrastructure matters.

rayiner 8y ago
Does rail infrastructure matter (at the prices we pay for it)? Maybe it would be better if these projects just never got done, because at the inflated prices we pay there are better uses for that money.
- jon_richards 8y ago
  In the modern age it's less about being able to move resources and more about being able to attract talent. Most people want to be able to take fast public transit into a highly dense area in order to work and most companies want butts in seats. You can't just throw money at all the workers and tell them to sit in traffic for 4 hours a day.
- croshan 8y ago
  Maybe, but it sounds like you're ignoring government inefficiency. Tell me, how many government projects are you a huge fan of? They're not exactly hallmarks of design or execution. But we need them, at some level, and they're more beneficial to society as a public good, than a private good. And we're years behind in public transport, we _are_ improving. Besides, if you're gonna target something that gives the least tangible gain for the cost, take a look at our monstrous defense budget.
  - masonic 8y ago
    government inefficiency A classic example: the new SF-Oakland Bay Bridge. Original retrofit estimate: $400 million Grandiose, craptastic new bridge cost thus far: $8 billion But wait, there's more: defective design, construction, and materials (bad welds in Chinese-made roadbed segments, defective, fragile rods/bolts, etc.) resulted in a bridge that is less safe than the $400M retrofit would have produced.
- brailsafe 8y ago
  This reminds me of the gun control fallacy in a way. Just because we can't stop gun murders entirely, doesn't mean we shouldn't have less guns available. It's a bit of a stretch, but do you know of any notable public transit initiatives that both weren't invested in in exchange for an alternative, and where the same money went to something that would fit your definition of more important?
  - convolvatron 8y ago
    i had the same thought. 'the cost-benefit on public works projects is always so poor and the process is corrupt', while likely true doesn't mean there is no place for public works. but maybe we should really fix the planning and the bidding so we don't always get ripped off.
MR4D 8y ago
If everyone thought that way, the nothing would ever get done by the government. Remember, privately developed options do exist. It’s just that the government crowds them out. (lotteries are a great example of this - I.e. no gambling .... unless we’re the house, then here, but this and gamble)

rayiner 8y ago

Does rail infrastructure matter (at the prices we pay for it)? Maybe it would be better if these projects just never got done, because at the inflated prices we pay there are better uses for that money.

jon_richards 8y ago
In the modern age it's less about being able to move resources and more about being able to attract talent. Most people want to be able to take fast public transit into a highly dense area in order to work and most companies want butts in seats. You can't just throw money at all the workers and tell them to sit in traffic for 4 hours a day.
croshan 8y ago
Maybe, but it sounds like you're ignoring government inefficiency. Tell me, how many government projects are you a huge fan of? They're not exactly hallmarks of design or execution. But we need them, at some level, and they're more beneficial to society as a public good, than a private good. And we're years behind in public transport, we _are_ improving. Besides, if you're gonna target something that gives the least tangible gain for the cost, take a look at our monstrous defense budget.
- masonic 8y ago
  government inefficiency A classic example: the new SF-Oakland Bay Bridge. Original retrofit estimate: $400 million Grandiose, craptastic new bridge cost thus far: $8 billion But wait, there's more: defective design, construction, and materials (bad welds in Chinese-made roadbed segments, defective, fragile rods/bolts, etc.) resulted in a bridge that is less safe than the $400M retrofit would have produced.
brailsafe 8y ago
This reminds me of the gun control fallacy in a way. Just because we can't stop gun murders entirely, doesn't mean we shouldn't have less guns available. It's a bit of a stretch, but do you know of any notable public transit initiatives that both weren't invested in in exchange for an alternative, and where the same money went to something that would fit your definition of more important?
- convolvatron 8y ago
  i had the same thought. 'the cost-benefit on public works projects is always so poor and the process is corrupt', while likely true doesn't mean there is no place for public works. but maybe we should really fix the planning and the bidding so we don't always get ripped off.

MR4D 8y ago

If everyone thought that way, the nothing would ever get done by the government. Remember, privately developed options do exist. It’s just that the government crowds them out. (lotteries are a great example of this - I.e. no gambling .... unless we’re the house, then here, but this and gamble)