ajmadesc
ajmadesc on Hacker News
Sorry for the late response. I think the solution is clearly to make more places like San Francisco. Not to make SF more like everywhere else.
The most import thing to take from this is that American pattern of suburbanization was a government choice.
Highways, suburbs, and car domminance would not exist anywhere near the scale that they do without massive government subsidies, or turning a blind eye to future expenses.
Theres also discounting the negative externalities of fossil fule emmissions on the planet and human health.
Ironically the libertarian types tend to prefer the type of development that 90% couldn't afford without subsidy.
Just like we shouldn't have bailed out the banks in '08 or junk bond holders in '20, we shouldn't bail out municipalities that borrowed too much from the future.
Its not just anti-road. Its non-dense development. The more spread out services the more resources it takes to maintain them.
The fact of the matter is that we've been accumulating "debt" to build suburbs by ignoring the costs of C02 emmisions and letting the gov subsidise construction w/o plans for upkeep
You should watch (Growth Ponzi Scheme)[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IsMeKl-Sv0] from not just bikes
So price the negative externalities of not having the tree and send it their way.
Maybe people aren't entitled to live in suburbs where trees are a threat
Oh but you can! Paris, London, and I'm sure countless other cities in Europe have pedestrianized or reduced traffic in large areas. The Netherlands has done this in most cities.
99.99% of suburbanites couldn't afford their lifestyle if it weren't for obsurd gov subsidies of infrastructure / petrol industry.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7IsMeKl-Sv0
TLDR:
* Write three things you're greatfull for daily. Bonus points if you share the task with friends
* Take walks and pay attention to what's happening
* Listen to soft nature sounds
That's not true though. The gov pays the providers as well.
Yeah but why not just have literal slaves and not require that people have health insurance.
The reductive "race to the bottom" can go both directions
I mean minimum wage isn't inflation adjusted is it.
I mean, what it only kicks in after say $25 million?
Then everyone would be able to own 25,000,000 worth of stuff free and clear.
>What the hell else are we paying for?
Are chips for industrial equipment or cars?
When you say cutting edge I think desktop / phone / servers.
Those democracies are protectorates
spending on RnD is equally incentivised. RnD increases share price which would tax free increase net worth.
>find even more creative ways to give it to themselves
This is not a good argument.
Yeah but how does a society deal with negative externalities like poisoning the water table, ecosystem destruction etc
Was it along the lines of, trying to convince OPEC to stop accepting dollars?
Oh cool! Much more than I would've suspected. Thanks for sharing
Most people who argue the point shout about how cheap, iphones, TVs, nice cars, and flights are. Something 80% can't afford regularly.
But Americans aren't educated outside of stem
> And it shows
Is that adjusted for rise in costs?
What counts as substantial?
All the 'printed' money is given directly to corporations. This increases their share price. That's where the inflation is. Asset process
He did it to buy the world's biggest yatch, and a space program
> The idea that real estate speculation being the baseline goal of universities is funny but doubtful
Drexel university is spearheading the gentrification of west Philadelphia.
They paid tens of millions for a dirty old tire shop.
They require the first three years of your degree to be spent in overpriced uni owned housing.
The chancellor makes one of the highest salaries in the us.
That's the only example I can really think of
"Administration", "outreach", "development"
And if my grandma had wheels she'd be a bike
> I stopped reading at “more fragile white Princeton….”
That seems quite a fragile thing to do
Taxation does fix the problem. The tax system is simply intentionally overcomplicated to allow the wealthy to avoid taxes.
So it boils down to. Don't break the window, burn the building