3 ms·

Cities are the engines of the modern economy. We can revert to an agrarian society if you please, but not without consequences.

by smadge 3y ago

tomcam 3y ago
I can’t see where GP said anything about reverting to an agrarian society. Was the post edited?
cyberax 3y ago
Cities are the engines of the early 20-th century economy. The modern economy is much better served by people living in comfortable suburban locations. Work from home and cars enable that.
- kibwen 3y ago
  The modern economy is much better served by people living in comfortable locations that are walkable rather than requiring a wasteful car to merely live. (American-style) suburbs will never be the engine of anything, they're neither agriculturally productive like rural areas nor as economically efficient as urban areas.
  - midoridensha 3y ago
    On top of that, the car requirement is in effect a gigantic tax: every person has to pay tens of thousands of dollars just to own a car, and many thousands to tens of thousands every year to operate and insure and maintain it. And that's a direct tax on every person. Then there's the maintenance costs for all the roadways needed to support all these cars, all the parking lots to park them in, etc. All that comes out of either direct taxes on people, or an indirect tax in the form of higher prices. Finally, this doesn't even consider the climate consequences of everyone driving around in a 6000-pound SUV; all these cars spewing emissions are turning those suburbs into very *un*comfortable locations with deadly heat waves. But good luck getting any Americans like the OP to understand any of this.
    - cyberax 3y ago
      > On top of that, the car requirement is in effect a gigantic tax: every person has to pay tens of thousands of dollars just to own a car, and many thousands to tens of thousands every year to operate and insure and maintain it. And that's a direct tax on every person. Wait until you hear how much public transit infrastructure costs. You'll faint from shock! > Finally, this doesn't even consider the climate consequences of everyone driving around in a 6000-pound SUV What if you drive a small EV instead? And here's the CO2 footprint data for transit: https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint > But good luck getting any Americans like the OP to understand any of this. I guess you never even tried to question your assumptions.
      - midoridensha 3y ago
        >Wait until you hear how much public transit infrastructure costs. You'll faint from shock! Considering how cheap it is for me to take the subway anywhere I want in Tokyo every day, it's not that much. Compared to roads, highways, etc. in sufficient size for every single person in the city to drive a car everywhere, public transit infrastructure costs are cheap. Strangely in America, though, drivers aren't required to pay every time they use those roads. Seems like socialism to me. >And here's the CO2 footprint data for transit: https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint Yeah, it says right in your link that transit is the greenest way to travel, other than walking or bicycling (which should be pretty obvious). >I guess you never even tried to question your assumptions. I guess you've never questioned yours, or ever been outside the US even.
        cyberax 3y ago
        > Considering how cheap it is for me to take the subway anywhere I want in Tokyo every day, it's not that much. Nope. You're just free-riding on taxes paid by other hard-working people, nothing is "free". > Strangely in America, though, drivers aren't required to pay every time they use those roads. Seems like socialism to me. In the state where I live, most of road maintenance is done with taxes based on road usage: https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/state-infrastructure-spending/ https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/state-infrastructur... > Yeah, it says right in your link that transit is the greenest way to travel, other than walking or bicycling (which should be pretty obvious). Reading comprehension much? Bus: 105g/km, small EV: 46 g/km, national rail: 41 g/km, London underground: 31 g/km. Basically, we just need to double the average occupancy of cars (easily doable with mild carpooling and van-type self-driving taxis), and they'll be more efficient than even subways. > I guess you've never questioned yours, or ever been outside the US even. LOL. I speak 5 languages (Russian, Ukrainian, English, German, Mandarin Chinese) and I got my first driving license at the age of 30. Before moving to the US, I lived in several European countries. I know exactly how much transit sucks compared to cars in well-designed cities.
  - cyberax 3y ago
    > The modern economy is much better served by people living in comfortable locations that are walkable Why? Walkability ties you down to your neighborhood by rote, it limits your economic prospects, and in general makes your life more miserable (you'll _waste_ a lot more time on chores). At the same time, remote work and service-based economy allows people to avoid having to attend the office every day. > (American-style) suburbs will never be the engine of anything LOL. Sour grapes? The US suburbs are _already_ the powerhouse of the country. People living there produce something like 85% of the wealth (using individual tax returns as a proxy).

Cities are the engines of the modern economy. We can revert to an agrarian society if you please, but not without consequences.

by smadge 3y ago

Cities are the engines of the modern economy. We can revert to an agrarian society if you please, but not without consequences.

tomcam 3y ago

I can’t see where GP said anything about reverting to an agrarian society. Was the post edited?

cyberax 3y ago

Cities are the engines of the early 20-th century economy. The modern economy is much better served by people living in comfortable suburban locations. Work from home and cars enable that.

kibwen 3y ago
The modern economy is much better served by people living in comfortable locations that are walkable rather than requiring a wasteful car to merely live. (American-style) suburbs will never be the engine of anything, they're neither agriculturally productive like rural areas nor as economically efficient as urban areas.
- midoridensha 3y ago
  On top of that, the car requirement is in effect a gigantic tax: every person has to pay tens of thousands of dollars just to own a car, and many thousands to tens of thousands every year to operate and insure and maintain it. And that's a direct tax on every person. Then there's the maintenance costs for all the roadways needed to support all these cars, all the parking lots to park them in, etc. All that comes out of either direct taxes on people, or an indirect tax in the form of higher prices. Finally, this doesn't even consider the climate consequences of everyone driving around in a 6000-pound SUV; all these cars spewing emissions are turning those suburbs into very *un*comfortable locations with deadly heat waves. But good luck getting any Americans like the OP to understand any of this.
  - cyberax 3y ago
    > On top of that, the car requirement is in effect a gigantic tax: every person has to pay tens of thousands of dollars just to own a car, and many thousands to tens of thousands every year to operate and insure and maintain it. And that's a direct tax on every person. Wait until you hear how much public transit infrastructure costs. You'll faint from shock! > Finally, this doesn't even consider the climate consequences of everyone driving around in a 6000-pound SUV What if you drive a small EV instead? And here's the CO2 footprint data for transit: https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint > But good luck getting any Americans like the OP to understand any of this. I guess you never even tried to question your assumptions.
    - midoridensha 3y ago
      >Wait until you hear how much public transit infrastructure costs. You'll faint from shock! Considering how cheap it is for me to take the subway anywhere I want in Tokyo every day, it's not that much. Compared to roads, highways, etc. in sufficient size for every single person in the city to drive a car everywhere, public transit infrastructure costs are cheap. Strangely in America, though, drivers aren't required to pay every time they use those roads. Seems like socialism to me. >And here's the CO2 footprint data for transit: https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint Yeah, it says right in your link that transit is the greenest way to travel, other than walking or bicycling (which should be pretty obvious). >I guess you never even tried to question your assumptions. I guess you've never questioned yours, or ever been outside the US even.
      - cyberax 3y ago
        > Considering how cheap it is for me to take the subway anywhere I want in Tokyo every day, it's not that much. Nope. You're just free-riding on taxes paid by other hard-working people, nothing is "free". > Strangely in America, though, drivers aren't required to pay every time they use those roads. Seems like socialism to me. In the state where I live, most of road maintenance is done with taxes based on road usage: https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/state-infrastructure-spending/ https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/state-infrastructur... > Yeah, it says right in your link that transit is the greenest way to travel, other than walking or bicycling (which should be pretty obvious). Reading comprehension much? Bus: 105g/km, small EV: 46 g/km, national rail: 41 g/km, London underground: 31 g/km. Basically, we just need to double the average occupancy of cars (easily doable with mild carpooling and van-type self-driving taxis), and they'll be more efficient than even subways. > I guess you've never questioned yours, or ever been outside the US even. LOL. I speak 5 languages (Russian, Ukrainian, English, German, Mandarin Chinese) and I got my first driving license at the age of 30. Before moving to the US, I lived in several European countries. I know exactly how much transit sucks compared to cars in well-designed cities.
- cyberax 3y ago
  > The modern economy is much better served by people living in comfortable locations that are walkable Why? Walkability ties you down to your neighborhood by rote, it limits your economic prospects, and in general makes your life more miserable (you'll _waste_ a lot more time on chores). At the same time, remote work and service-based economy allows people to avoid having to attend the office every day. > (American-style) suburbs will never be the engine of anything LOL. Sour grapes? The US suburbs are _already_ the powerhouse of the country. People living there produce something like 85% of the wealth (using individual tax returns as a proxy).