3 ms·

Also, the US explicitly designed new development around the idea of people owning cars. Public transportation is kind of a moot point when you just have tracts

Also, the US explicitly designed new development around the idea of people owning cars. Public transportation is kind of a moot point when you just have tracts of housing completely separate from commercial areas. All you have to do is visit Seoul or Tokyo to see how valuable and useful public transportation is, when it's done correctly and city planning takes it into account. Even if one is rich, actually driving and parking is a complete hassle most of the time in cities. It's so much more convenient to take a bus or train.

rufus_foreman 5y ago
When you go from thousandaire to millionaire to billionare, your spending on busses or trains goes down. That's an inferior good.
- andrewzah 5y ago
  I don't really understand why you're fixated on this one particular viewpoint. That statement does not look at -context-. Cities are not designed around the rich or the ultra-rich. Transportation systems are not designed around the rich or the ultra-rich. If all of us had infinite money we would just use private jets or something, but that doesn't mean that jets are strictly superior to cars... this is an apples to oranges comparison. As someone who's lived in Chicago, Seoul, and South Carolina, I can say that our public transportation systems are wholly inferior to Korea and Japan's public transportation systems. It's not strictly a matter of money or not, it's a multifaceted cultural topic. The whole idea of ranking transportation systems by what rich people do or don't do makes absolutely zero sense.
  - rufus_foreman 5y ago
    "If all of us had infinite money we would just use private jets or something, but that doesn't mean that jets are strictly superior to cars" That would mean cars were an inferior good over that income range.
    - andrewzah 5y ago
      Then you need to quantify your statement. -> _For the ultra-rich_, trains and other public transportation are inferior options. This is completely different from saying that public transportation is an inferior good overall. It's not that simple.
      - rufus_foreman 5y ago
        If your income goes up and you spend less on something, that's an inferior good. That's pretty much the definition of an inferior good.
        syops 5y ago
        Yes, in economics this is called an inferior good. This does not make public transportation a bad investment or mean that society wouldn’t be better off overall with it. We are local optimization machines and sometimes our desires are not overall beneficial to us. It is an inferior good as that phrase is used in economics but it is the right choice. Economics primarily deals with desire and ‘utility’ functions. It does not provide insight into what is best for society as a whole. Particularly since in our system negative externalities are not built into price.
        rufus_foreman 5y ago
        >> We are local optimization machines and sometimes our desires are not overall beneficial to us. Who decides what is beneficial for me in your opinion, me, you or the government?
        syops 5y ago
        Sometimes government, sometimes the individual. It’s a balancing act. My neighbor might think it’s in his best interest to dump toxic waste on his property because he needs/wants money. In this case, thankfully, government is there to look out for the benefit of society as a whole.

rufus_foreman 5y ago

When you go from thousandaire to millionaire to billionare, your spending on busses or trains goes down. That's an inferior good.

andrewzah 5y ago
I don't really understand why you're fixated on this one particular viewpoint. That statement does not look at -context-. Cities are not designed around the rich or the ultra-rich. Transportation systems are not designed around the rich or the ultra-rich. If all of us had infinite money we would just use private jets or something, but that doesn't mean that jets are strictly superior to cars... this is an apples to oranges comparison. As someone who's lived in Chicago, Seoul, and South Carolina, I can say that our public transportation systems are wholly inferior to Korea and Japan's public transportation systems. It's not strictly a matter of money or not, it's a multifaceted cultural topic. The whole idea of ranking transportation systems by what rich people do or don't do makes absolutely zero sense.
- rufus_foreman 5y ago
  "If all of us had infinite money we would just use private jets or something, but that doesn't mean that jets are strictly superior to cars" That would mean cars were an inferior good over that income range.
  - andrewzah 5y ago
    Then you need to quantify your statement. -> _For the ultra-rich_, trains and other public transportation are inferior options. This is completely different from saying that public transportation is an inferior good overall. It's not that simple.
    - rufus_foreman 5y ago
      If your income goes up and you spend less on something, that's an inferior good. That's pretty much the definition of an inferior good.
      - syops 5y ago
        Yes, in economics this is called an inferior good. This does not make public transportation a bad investment or mean that society wouldn’t be better off overall with it. We are local optimization machines and sometimes our desires are not overall beneficial to us. It is an inferior good as that phrase is used in economics but it is the right choice. Economics primarily deals with desire and ‘utility’ functions. It does not provide insight into what is best for society as a whole. Particularly since in our system negative externalities are not built into price.
        rufus_foreman 5y ago
        >> We are local optimization machines and sometimes our desires are not overall beneficial to us. Who decides what is beneficial for me in your opinion, me, you or the government?
        syops 5y ago
        Sometimes government, sometimes the individual. It’s a balancing act. My neighbor might think it’s in his best interest to dump toxic waste on his property because he needs/wants money. In this case, thankfully, government is there to look out for the benefit of society as a whole.