5 ms·

For how long, I wonder. Many of those cities are intensely adverse to new taxes and public works that make larger cities livable. If they keep growing, they'll

For how long, I wonder. Many of those cities are intensely adverse to new taxes and public works that make larger cities livable. If they keep growing, they'll end up in a similar if not worse situation as the coastal cities. A big reason the coastal cities (LA, SF etc) are unlivable is due to a lack of investment in mass transit and housing.

claydavisss 8y ago
Simple solution, you just move again. People escaping high costs are typically moving to a place where they will probably have few roots and connections, so there will be little reason to stick around if costs rise again
chroem- 8y ago
>new taxes and public works that make larger cities livable I thought people are moving specifically because large cities are unliveable. The article actually cites a more lax regulatory and tax environment as one of the reasons for why people and businesses are moving.
- jorblumesea 8y ago
  Sure, and then the realization that cities need to pay for things like infrastructure and transit to support their growing (and increasingly dense) population, and either way a a possibly unlivable situation develops. High taxes/high rents, or low taxes but zero infrastructure or support. No US city has managed to figure out the formula. That low tax situation has only lasted because there was previously no need for real serious spending.
  - claydavisss 8y ago
    Taxes in California are funding public employee pensions, not supporting infrastructure (as evidenced by countless remedial propositions)
    - jorblumesea 8y ago
      That's not true, the largest slices of California's state budget goes to healthcare, with education next in line. Pensions are 3rd and account for 18% of the state budget. I'm not denying pensions aren't a significant chunk, but the "your taxes do nothing" argument is getting pretty old. https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/california_state_spending_pie_chart https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/california_state_spendi...
      - claydavisss 8y ago
        My point remains...you're not paying for infrastructure. You also missed the chicken/egg...high taxes a component of the high cost of living that causes people to move in the first place. California's poverty rate has risen with the population...the poor are moving in and they are not impacted by most tax measures, so they have no reason to oppose them.
        jorblumesea 8y ago
        You are paying for infrastructure. $50 / billion a year, 4% of the total budget. Not including specific city budgets and local spending. https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2009_2024CAb_60t https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2009_202... Taxes are just one side of the same coin, the high cost of living is really just a density issue. Lots of high paying jobs, lots of Nimby building practices and little density and transit investment. Tokyo is a city of 20 million people yet is far more affordable and even has higher taxes. California didn't build to support it's population. If these secondary cities make the same mistake, they too will be high cost/unlivable places.
  - nawitus 8y ago
    Wouldn't the cost of infrastructure scale with the increased tax revenue from the increased population? I would also assume that infrastructure is actually cheaper per capita if population density increases, which would imply lower tax rates.
    - jorblumesea 8y ago
      It depends on how the infrastructure is funded. In some states, that budget is based on property taxes. In some states, income and state taxes. It's not really a one size fits all problem. In some cases, the money is there but the voter will is not because there's a real "tax is theft" movement in many states.
beerlord 8y ago
I think electric scooters and autonomous vehicles (which in a bus version can also double as privatised mass transport) will solve that problem. Public Tram, Bus and Rail systems are obsolete because they need a permanent human driver (expensive, difficult to operate 24/7) or dedicated infrastructure (expensive). They cannot operate point to point or modify their route in response to demand. They cannot discriminate against who they accept (no female-only busses, or upper-class only busses, etc.) What we should be looking at is what kind of changes to the physical road system do we need to accelerate autonomous vehicles - road/lane markings? Digital traffic signs? Inter-vehicle data transmission standards?
- moorhosj 8y ago
  How do you handle the increased demand without even more dedicated infrastructure for roads? How much cheaper is it than dedicated infrastructure for buses and rails which have far more capacity?
  - beerlord 8y ago
    It will become a positive feedback loop. Autonomous private busses, with routes auto-calculated based on the start and end point that passengers enter via smartphone, will take cars off the road. Cars off the road will speed up those busses, making them more attractive. Etc.
    - moorhosj 8y ago
      What do you do before your assumed feedback loop takes hold? Wouldn’t all the new scooter riders take up a lot of that real estate on the road? How will the road operate with both autonomous and non-autonomous vehicles sharing space?
      - beerlord 8y ago
        Operating on the basis that one scooter rider is one less car driver, there is an immediate benefit. Scooters have an even smaller footprint than a bicycle.

claydavisss 8y ago

Simple solution, you just move again. People escaping high costs are typically moving to a place where they will probably have few roots and connections, so there will be little reason to stick around if costs rise again

chroem- 8y ago

>new taxes and public works that make larger cities livable I thought people are moving specifically because large cities are unliveable. The article actually cites a more lax regulatory and tax environment as one of the reasons for why people and businesses are moving.

jorblumesea 8y ago
Sure, and then the realization that cities need to pay for things like infrastructure and transit to support their growing (and increasingly dense) population, and either way a a possibly unlivable situation develops. High taxes/high rents, or low taxes but zero infrastructure or support. No US city has managed to figure out the formula. That low tax situation has only lasted because there was previously no need for real serious spending.
- claydavisss 8y ago
  Taxes in California are funding public employee pensions, not supporting infrastructure (as evidenced by countless remedial propositions)
  - jorblumesea 8y ago
    That's not true, the largest slices of California's state budget goes to healthcare, with education next in line. Pensions are 3rd and account for 18% of the state budget. I'm not denying pensions aren't a significant chunk, but the "your taxes do nothing" argument is getting pretty old. https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/california_state_spending_pie_chart https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/california_state_spendi...
    - claydavisss 8y ago
      My point remains...you're not paying for infrastructure. You also missed the chicken/egg...high taxes a component of the high cost of living that causes people to move in the first place. California's poverty rate has risen with the population...the poor are moving in and they are not impacted by most tax measures, so they have no reason to oppose them.
      - jorblumesea 8y ago
        You are paying for infrastructure. $50 / billion a year, 4% of the total budget. Not including specific city budgets and local spending. https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2009_2024CAb_60t https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2009_202... Taxes are just one side of the same coin, the high cost of living is really just a density issue. Lots of high paying jobs, lots of Nimby building practices and little density and transit investment. Tokyo is a city of 20 million people yet is far more affordable and even has higher taxes. California didn't build to support it's population. If these secondary cities make the same mistake, they too will be high cost/unlivable places.
- nawitus 8y ago
  Wouldn't the cost of infrastructure scale with the increased tax revenue from the increased population? I would also assume that infrastructure is actually cheaper per capita if population density increases, which would imply lower tax rates.
  - jorblumesea 8y ago
    It depends on how the infrastructure is funded. In some states, that budget is based on property taxes. In some states, income and state taxes. It's not really a one size fits all problem. In some cases, the money is there but the voter will is not because there's a real "tax is theft" movement in many states.

beerlord 8y ago

I think electric scooters and autonomous vehicles (which in a bus version can also double as privatised mass transport) will solve that problem. Public Tram, Bus and Rail systems are obsolete because they need a permanent human driver (expensive, difficult to operate 24/7) or dedicated infrastructure (expensive). They cannot operate point to point or modify their route in response to demand. They cannot discriminate against who they accept (no female-only busses, or upper-class only busses, etc.) What we should be looking at is what kind of changes to the physical road system do we need to accelerate autonomous vehicles - road/lane markings? Digital traffic signs? Inter-vehicle data transmission standards?

moorhosj 8y ago
How do you handle the increased demand without even more dedicated infrastructure for roads? How much cheaper is it than dedicated infrastructure for buses and rails which have far more capacity?
- beerlord 8y ago
  It will become a positive feedback loop. Autonomous private busses, with routes auto-calculated based on the start and end point that passengers enter via smartphone, will take cars off the road. Cars off the road will speed up those busses, making them more attractive. Etc.
  - moorhosj 8y ago
    What do you do before your assumed feedback loop takes hold? Wouldn’t all the new scooter riders take up a lot of that real estate on the road? How will the road operate with both autonomous and non-autonomous vehicles sharing space?
    - beerlord 8y ago
      Operating on the basis that one scooter rider is one less car driver, there is an immediate benefit. Scooters have an even smaller footprint than a bicycle.