5 ms·

> productive citizens in suburbs are forced to subsidize inner-city transit through taxes. Could you say specifically what you mean? People in NYC pay state ta

by mmooss 7mo ago

> productive citizens in suburbs are forced to subsidize inner-city transit through taxes. Could you say specifically what you mean? People in NYC pay state taxes for things that happen in the suburbs and upstate, and around the country and in other parts of the world. That's part of living in a community. NYC is also an incredible economic (and cultural and ...) engine without which, most of those suburbs and the jobs of the suburbanites wouldn't exist. (Also, the MTA runs to the suburbs.) > It's a lie. I provided a cite. Maybe you can do better on HN than this sad attempt at aggression. > The true cost is around $20 We were talking about the cost to individuals of transportation. The subway costs $3 per trip, before any discounts. > People don't so much _choose_ as are forced to stay in NYC by economics mercilessly crushing them into dense shoebox-sized apartments. You'll have to provide some evidence. The data says people pay a lot of money to live in NYC, in tiny apartments. Many of people I know would love to live there if they could afford it. People love to visit from all over the world. People buy homes there who could afford to live anywhere. There are songs about it, you might have heard. Most of what you have is just aggressive words - 'lie', 'forced'. What do you have against NYC? Did someone run over your toes at an intersection? And if you don't like it, why insist everyone else must think and feel the same as you?

cyberax 7mo ago
> NYC is also an incredible economic (and cultural and ...) engine without which, most of those suburbs and the jobs of the suburbanites wouldn't exist. (Also, the MTA runs to the suburbs.) I was speaking more in general. In other cities, the dense inner cores are overwhelmingly subsidized by the suburbs and/or urban villages ("suburb within a city"). This can be easily seen if you look at the _personal_ income tax stats. > NYC is also an incredible economic (and cultural and ...) engine without which, most of those suburbs and the jobs of the suburbanites wouldn't exist. Or maybe not having an endless pit of generational despair would have ensured that other states had better economics, resulting in less polarization and the true golden age for the US? If you want to talk about "would haves", I can also invent tons of scenarios. > We were talking about the cost to individuals of transportation. The subway costs $3 per trip, before any discounts. We can also sponsor every car owner to the tune of $500 a month, and they would also have 3$ trips, before any discounts. See? Money comes out of somewhere, and by allocating funds towards unproductive transit, we move them away from better projects. Money is a proxy for the natural and human resources, and they're not unlimited. > You'll have to provide some evidence. The data says people pay a lot of money to live in NYC, in tiny apartments. Look at your argument backwards: what is forcing people to cram into tiny apartments that cost more than mansions just a few hours away? The answer is simple: jobs. The runaway density pollution resulted in economy that is forcing people to migrate to be in proximity to ever-densifying city cores. They don't have a choice, just like you couldn't chose not to breathe toxic smoke back in the industrial era. > Most of what you have is just aggressive words - 'lie', 'forced'. What do you have against NYC? I'm using exactly the same language as urbanists. They force that vocabulary on the unsuspecting people, framing discussions in their favor simply by chosing words. Why shouldn't I?
- mmooss 7mo ago
  > I was speaking more in general. In other cities, the dense inner cores are overwhelmingly subsidized by the suburbs and/or urban villages ("suburb within a city"). > This can be easily seen if you look at the _personal_ income tax stats. I don't see how personal income taxes relate - in fact, many cities have higher taxes, which is why some people move to suburbs. Also, what you say disagrees with economics, which generally agrees that cities are the economic engines of modern economies. Is there any question what generates more income, Manhattan or North Hempstead? And part of the reason for that level of high economic activity is density. > We can also sponsor every car owner to the tune of $500 a month, and they would also have 3$ trips, before any discounts. See? Money comes out of somewhere, and by allocating funds towards unproductive transit, we move them away from better projects. We do subsidize car ownership heavily, via fossil fuels, highways, parking, etc. In the 2008 recession, US taxpayers loaned extraordinary amounts of money to the car industry to keep it afloat. To say mass transit is unproductive is just circular reasoning, based only on your assumptions. Again, afaik economists strongly agree that mass transit is far more efficient, which also seems obvious - why have a separate ICE for each of 40 people on one subway car or bus? Just imagine how much real estate those cars would take, on the road and parking. > what is forcing people to cram into tiny apartments that cost more than mansions just a few hours away? The answer is simple: jobs. No, people actually love living in NYC and other dense cities. Lots of people I know do. You can live outside Manhattan or even NYC and work the same jobs (including by using mass transit) - lots of people do that too. But demand is much higher for much smaller space to live in the city, where there are people (humans love being around other humans), restaurants and food, arts, culture, social events, activity in the city that never sleeps (something people love), endless resources. Manhattan, the most expensive place in the country, is not filled with working class people. > I'm using exactly the same language as urbanists. I don't know what you're talking about, but your language betrays the weakness of your arguments. There are no factual bases to them.
  - cyberax 7mo ago
    > I don't see how personal income taxes relate - in fact, many cities have higher taxes, which is why some people move to suburbs. Again, buildings don't generate wealth. People do. And personal Federal income taxes serve as a good proxy to see who's contributing more to the US economy. > We do subsidize car ownership heavily, via fossil fuels, highways, parking, etc. The car subsidies are NOWHERE close to transit subsidies. In my state, car users pay for everything directly. Yet there are no cities in the US where transit pays even for its running costs without subsidies. > In the 2008 recession, US taxpayers loaned extraordinary amounts of money to the car industry to keep it afloat. I agree. We should force all the transit agencies to start paying back what they got as subsidies. Let them raise ticket prices, sell space for ads, whatever. GM got a $12B bailout in 2008. Sound Transit in Seattle will get more than $100B to build about 50 miles of rail. > To say mass transit is unproductive is just circular reasoning, based only on your assumptions. I actually have other evidence. Like accessibility of jobs. A person with a car in 1980-s US had access to about 2-3x businesses than an average European living in a large city with transit. > Again, afaik economists strongly agree Who? > which also seems obvious - why have a separate ICE for each of 40 people on one subway car or bus? Let me reverse this argument: why have 3 people (number of bus drivers/number of buses) serving as a dedicated driver just for 18 people (average bus load)? This is not a good use of human potential. It's like having a separate person coming in every day just to turn on your lights! > Just imagine how much real estate those cars would take, on the road and parking. Not much more than a bus, actually. About 2-3x more. The average bus load is just around 18 people, even in NYC. > No, people actually love living in NYC and other dense cities. Nope. We can check that by looking at total fertility rates. It's a J-shaped curve in the modern societies. > You can live outside Manhattan or even NYC and work the same jobs (including by using mass transit) - lots of people do that too. No, you can't. You have only a 30-minute commute budget before it becomes uncomfortable, and so you _have_ to live close enough. > I don't know what you're talking about, but your language betrays the weakness of your arguments. There are no factual bases to them. I'm the only one in this thread citing anything but feelings or easily debunked "intuitive" ideas.

by mmooss 7mo ago

cyberax 7mo ago

> NYC is also an incredible economic (and cultural and ...) engine without which, most of those suburbs and the jobs of the suburbanites wouldn't exist. (Also, the MTA runs to the suburbs.) I was speaking more in general. In other cities, the dense inner cores are overwhelmingly subsidized by the suburbs and/or urban villages ("suburb within a city"). This can be easily seen if you look at the _personal_ income tax stats. > NYC is also an incredible economic (and cultural and ...) engine without which, most of those suburbs and the jobs of the suburbanites wouldn't exist. Or maybe not having an endless pit of generational despair would have ensured that other states had better economics, resulting in less polarization and the true golden age for the US? If you want to talk about "would haves", I can also invent tons of scenarios. > We were talking about the cost to individuals of transportation. The subway costs $3 per trip, before any discounts. We can also sponsor every car owner to the tune of $500 a month, and they would also have 3$ trips, before any discounts. See? Money comes out of somewhere, and by allocating funds towards unproductive transit, we move them away from better projects. Money is a proxy for the natural and human resources, and they're not unlimited. > You'll have to provide some evidence. The data says people pay a lot of money to live in NYC, in tiny apartments. Look at your argument backwards: what is forcing people to cram into tiny apartments that cost more than mansions just a few hours away? The answer is simple: jobs. The runaway density pollution resulted in economy that is forcing people to migrate to be in proximity to ever-densifying city cores. They don't have a choice, just like you couldn't chose not to breathe toxic smoke back in the industrial era. > Most of what you have is just aggressive words - 'lie', 'forced'. What do you have against NYC? I'm using exactly the same language as urbanists. They force that vocabulary on the unsuspecting people, framing discussions in their favor simply by chosing words. Why shouldn't I?

mmooss 7mo ago
> I was speaking more in general. In other cities, the dense inner cores are overwhelmingly subsidized by the suburbs and/or urban villages ("suburb within a city"). > This can be easily seen if you look at the _personal_ income tax stats. I don't see how personal income taxes relate - in fact, many cities have higher taxes, which is why some people move to suburbs. Also, what you say disagrees with economics, which generally agrees that cities are the economic engines of modern economies. Is there any question what generates more income, Manhattan or North Hempstead? And part of the reason for that level of high economic activity is density. > We can also sponsor every car owner to the tune of $500 a month, and they would also have 3$ trips, before any discounts. See? Money comes out of somewhere, and by allocating funds towards unproductive transit, we move them away from better projects. We do subsidize car ownership heavily, via fossil fuels, highways, parking, etc. In the 2008 recession, US taxpayers loaned extraordinary amounts of money to the car industry to keep it afloat. To say mass transit is unproductive is just circular reasoning, based only on your assumptions. Again, afaik economists strongly agree that mass transit is far more efficient, which also seems obvious - why have a separate ICE for each of 40 people on one subway car or bus? Just imagine how much real estate those cars would take, on the road and parking. > what is forcing people to cram into tiny apartments that cost more than mansions just a few hours away? The answer is simple: jobs. No, people actually love living in NYC and other dense cities. Lots of people I know do. You can live outside Manhattan or even NYC and work the same jobs (including by using mass transit) - lots of people do that too. But demand is much higher for much smaller space to live in the city, where there are people (humans love being around other humans), restaurants and food, arts, culture, social events, activity in the city that never sleeps (something people love), endless resources. Manhattan, the most expensive place in the country, is not filled with working class people. > I'm using exactly the same language as urbanists. I don't know what you're talking about, but your language betrays the weakness of your arguments. There are no factual bases to them.
- cyberax 7mo ago
  > I don't see how personal income taxes relate - in fact, many cities have higher taxes, which is why some people move to suburbs. Again, buildings don't generate wealth. People do. And personal Federal income taxes serve as a good proxy to see who's contributing more to the US economy. > We do subsidize car ownership heavily, via fossil fuels, highways, parking, etc. The car subsidies are NOWHERE close to transit subsidies. In my state, car users pay for everything directly. Yet there are no cities in the US where transit pays even for its running costs without subsidies. > In the 2008 recession, US taxpayers loaned extraordinary amounts of money to the car industry to keep it afloat. I agree. We should force all the transit agencies to start paying back what they got as subsidies. Let them raise ticket prices, sell space for ads, whatever. GM got a $12B bailout in 2008. Sound Transit in Seattle will get more than $100B to build about 50 miles of rail. > To say mass transit is unproductive is just circular reasoning, based only on your assumptions. I actually have other evidence. Like accessibility of jobs. A person with a car in 1980-s US had access to about 2-3x businesses than an average European living in a large city with transit. > Again, afaik economists strongly agree Who? > which also seems obvious - why have a separate ICE for each of 40 people on one subway car or bus? Let me reverse this argument: why have 3 people (number of bus drivers/number of buses) serving as a dedicated driver just for 18 people (average bus load)? This is not a good use of human potential. It's like having a separate person coming in every day just to turn on your lights! > Just imagine how much real estate those cars would take, on the road and parking. Not much more than a bus, actually. About 2-3x more. The average bus load is just around 18 people, even in NYC. > No, people actually love living in NYC and other dense cities. Nope. We can check that by looking at total fertility rates. It's a J-shaped curve in the modern societies. > You can live outside Manhattan or even NYC and work the same jobs (including by using mass transit) - lots of people do that too. No, you can't. You have only a 30-minute commute budget before it becomes uncomfortable, and so you _have_ to live close enough. > I don't know what you're talking about, but your language betrays the weakness of your arguments. There are no factual bases to them. I'm the only one in this thread citing anything but feelings or easily debunked "intuitive" ideas.