3 ms·

Assumes facts not in evidence; there is no reason to suppose that a class-based explanation is correct when the much simpler explanation of "not having to leave

Assumes facts not in evidence; there is no reason to suppose that a class-based explanation is correct when the much simpler explanation of "not having to leave an hour early to work around Muni's terrible service quality" adequately explains the situation.

girvo 12y ago
A class-based explanation and Muni being a terrible service "ripe for disruption" are not mutually exclusive. You can't, however, argue that a private bus service that requires a smartphone and costs 3x what regular public transport does doesn't have interesting effects on who can and can't use it.
- pjlegato 12y ago
  Smartphones may have been highly class correlated in 2006, but they're not now. You can get one prepaid for around $30 at any cell phone shop. 77% of those 18-29 with an annual income under 30k own a smartphone.[1] Atrocious public bus service impacts the poor much more than those who are better off: someone with a salaried professional job who comes in late a couple of times a week due to Muni will usually not even register on the organization at all, whereas someone making minimum wage on a time clock will likely be fired for that -- and thus strongly motivated to pay extra for a transportation mechanism that is likely to arrive on time. [1] http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/06/05/smartphone-ownership-2013/ http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/06/05/smartphone-ownership-2...
  - aetherson 12y ago
    People under 18-29 who make under $30k/year are much less likely to be traditionally "lower class" than other people in that income bracket. But sure, smartphones are pretty widespread these days. If that were the only factor biasing these busses towards the wealthier end of the society, then the bias wouldn't be very much. It's not the only factor.
mempko 12y ago
It isn't a "class based" explanation. The poor and those riding the expensive buses are the same working class. I find it strange that the "middle class" considers it distinct from the "working class" when they themselves are also working class. If you don't own a business, you are in the same class as 99% of the population.

girvo 12y ago

A class-based explanation and Muni being a terrible service "ripe for disruption" are not mutually exclusive. You can't, however, argue that a private bus service that requires a smartphone and costs 3x what regular public transport does doesn't have interesting effects on who can and can't use it.

pjlegato 12y ago
Smartphones may have been highly class correlated in 2006, but they're not now. You can get one prepaid for around $30 at any cell phone shop. 77% of those 18-29 with an annual income under 30k own a smartphone.[1] Atrocious public bus service impacts the poor much more than those who are better off: someone with a salaried professional job who comes in late a couple of times a week due to Muni will usually not even register on the organization at all, whereas someone making minimum wage on a time clock will likely be fired for that -- and thus strongly motivated to pay extra for a transportation mechanism that is likely to arrive on time. [1] http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/06/05/smartphone-ownership-2013/ http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/06/05/smartphone-ownership-2...
- aetherson 12y ago
  People under 18-29 who make under $30k/year are much less likely to be traditionally "lower class" than other people in that income bracket. But sure, smartphones are pretty widespread these days. If that were the only factor biasing these busses towards the wealthier end of the society, then the bias wouldn't be very much. It's not the only factor.

mempko 12y ago

It isn't a "class based" explanation. The poor and those riding the expensive buses are the same working class. I find it strange that the "middle class" considers it distinct from the "working class" when they themselves are also working class. If you don't own a business, you are in the same class as 99% of the population.