6 ms·
Interesting, so to put this in market terms, the city is allowing the value that such people add to it to be offset against the cost of their rent. This would m
by moconnor 3y ago
Interesting, so to put this in market terms, the city is allowing the value that such people add to it to be offset against the cost of their rent. This would mean that cities like Paris choosing to do this is entirely rational and GP's calculation fails to reach this conclusion because it ignores the actual trade that is being made in these cases?
Or to make a clichéd example: being cool and arty isn't particularly rewarded by salaries because there are a limited number of opportunities for this to improve a company's profitability. But it can be rewarded by subsidised rents because people prefer to live in cities with a population of cool and arty people for the non-monetary benefits they bring to that society.
- robertlagrant 3y ago> But it can be rewarded by subsidised rents because people prefer to live in cities with a population of cool and arty people for the non-monetary benefits they bring to that society. Well, some people do. But everyone is paying for it, even if they'd rather save.
- underlipton 3y agoIf the value your espousing is, "No one should ever pay to have others live better than them off a livelihood that they don't support," a great portion of the remainder of America's middle class gets Thanos snapped. A lot of the decently-paying jobs in services, tech, etc. that these communities rely on essentially make the world a worse place, but they're profitable, and people gotta eat.
- robertlagrant 3y ago> A lot of the decently-paying jobs in services, tech, etc. that these communities rely on essentially make the world a worse place, but they're profitable, and people gotta eat. If those jobs are paid for by voluntary customers, then that's fine. If they're subsidised through taxes of people who don't want them, that's the issue I'm mentioning.
- underlipton 3y ago>If those jobs are paid for by voluntary customers >If they're subsidised through taxes of people who don't want them Yes.
- robertlagrant 3y agoIf they're subsidised, they're not paid for by voluntary customers.
- underlipton 3y agoFalse dichotomy. Labor can be funded by multiple sources at the same time.
- bedobi 3y agothere is no job on this planet that isn't subsidized by taxes how do people show up to work at Google, Apple etc? through everything from "not dying from preventably disease in adolescence" to "being educated in public schools" to "being carried to work on roads and transit paid for by the public"
- robertlagrant 3y ago> there is no job on this planet that isn't subsidized by taxes As in if I am a private plumber who does jobs for people, my job is subsidised by taxes?
- bedobi 3y agoYes. Who do you think laid the infrastructure for people to get water and sewers in the first place?
- robertlagrant 3y agoThat depends on the city. If it was originally a company town, probably the company. If it's a new build, probably the property developer. But either way, something that already exists is not subsidising the plumber's salary. The plumber is paid by the customer.
- moconnor 3y agoI guess ideally people who live in the city pay for such subsidies through various municipal taxes. People who do not value this policy and choose to live in a different city that aligns with their values would not pay for it. Everybody gets what they want.
- robertlagrant 3y ago> People who do not value this policy and choose to live in a different city that aligns with their values would not pay for it. Everybody gets what they want Well, not necessarily. People stay for jobs, family and friends. They will just pay for something they're not bothered about if it's not so expensive they're forced to move. That doesn't mean them staying is anything to do with the thing some people want.
- dandellion 3y agoI live in Southern Europe. A lot of the people I talk to (about half I would guesstimate) would rather live somewhere else but can't. Some would even prefer to move to a cheaper place but can't (work, elders, kids, mortgages, are some of the reason).
- bedobi 3y agoI mean, OK, you could say the same about literally every public expenditure? I'm passionately opposed to private automobiles and the fact that my tax money goes to subsidizing them (including stupid road upkeep etc) unfortunately I don't get to choose not to pay for that (but I can choose to live in a place like Paris where the Mayor is taking active steps to support not only private automobiles but give equal importance to other modes of transport)
- robertlagrant 3y agoIf you want emergency services vehicles to be able to access and help at any location, you want roads. That's what you're paying for.
- bedobi 3y agoYeah because you ardent motorists care so much about emergency vehicle access right? I don't have a problem with roads, I have a problem with roads being gridlocked and destroyed by single occupancy private automobiles and the resulting unnecessary deaths and road upkeep.
- robertlagrant 3y ago> Yeah because you ardent motorists You need to be able to speak without classifying people into groups. I'm not an ardent motorist. I don't think it's good to allow myself to be indoctrinated into any of the (frankly bizarre) transportation-obsessed groups that exist.