To be fair, 700M in subsidies was supposed to have a return on investment. Though, it didn’t.
700M in free busses would not bring a return on investment except for just generally improving the quality of society. Which I still think is better, but we do have to consider that from their point of view.
Edit: please stop replying to this comment with counterarguments, I agree with all of you and was just trying to say how it might be seen. This is getting obnoxious. I wrote it wrong and now people think I’m a capitalist cuck lmao
$700M in free buses means better access to jobs and services, which has tangible economic benefits and results in tax money coming back to the government.
Public transit, healthcare (including dental and mental), shelter, food, water, communication (mail, cellular, internet), social community events/activities, and yes even defense is where taxes should go. There’s enough to go around to cover all of it if greedy mother fuckers would get their grimy ass hands out of the cookie jar. I hope I see the day before my days are done.
You’re just trying to be intellectually honest here, by recognizing that in theory subsidies are supposed to bring jobs and economic benefits to a region, whereas public transit is seen as a cost center. And I think you’ve been sufficiently rebuked on that point.
Anyway, upvoted because I appreciate the attempt to engage conservative fiscal policy on its own terms. It’s easy to frame it as “rich people good, poor people bad,” but occasionally we need to debate the internal logic of it so we can properly pull back the curtain and see it for what it really is, which is in fact “rich people good, poor people bad.” You started that debate, and as a result the consensus here feels more like a good-faith rebuttal and less like a sarcastic shot from the hip (which my original post definitely was).
Not just employment, but all sorts of things. For example, the NYPL runs all sorts of free classes at its various branches. People could also more easily access other services. Plus, if the buses are free and reliable, it could also provide incentive for people to just go out and do stuff that they might otherwise not. Even if you’re doing okay financially, something like the cost of gas and parking, in addition to the actual tickets, could discourage you from going to a concert or a baseball game. If there’s a convenient enough bus option for you that doesn’t cost anything, you might go out and spend some money you otherwise wouldn’t have.
Plus, I would argue it would also make a city more attractive to anyone looking to move to a new city, which could bring in more money to local businesses and expand the tax base for the city.
You have a good point. If money is no longer a barrier to transport, the entire city would be open to everyone. That would increase incentive to have outings.
I agree with all of you and was just trying to say how it might be seen.
This right here is the problem. We allow the GOP and the Murdochs to dictate the meaning of these things and gaslight the people into believing the fiction that some billionaire industrialist stooping to grace a city with their business is worth more than thousands of regular folks just getting to work, doing their jobs, living their lives, and making our society work. It needs to be plastered everywhere that not only do we not need billionaires or even multimillionaires but that they are quintessentially harmful to our country and our society.
P.S. if you aren’t prepared to deal with every Tom, Dick, and Jane replying to your comment to argue every little thing then you should give up commenting cause people are gonna argue no matter what. It’s how ideas get around.
Don’t forget, Cuomo was also ready to give Amazon $3 billion in incentives to build their sweatshop HQ in Queens, and AOC led the charge to kill the deal. Why should NYC pay such an exorbitant amount to a Sociopathic Oligarch for the privilege of exploiting their citizens? Let him use his own money to exploit his workers.
If you want to be fair, you’ve got it completely backwards. Tesla wasn’t going to be bringing in much in the way of actually paying proper taxes or treating the residents well but we have actual real-life examples of free bus experiments boosting the local economy.
It’s not even about being nice for the residents, though that is obviously a major positive, it’s just the only smart thing to do. It’s literally stupid as hell to not at least try it from a financial perspective and the only thing that stops people is because it would be a kindness.
define investment, who was going to pay the state’s ROI? elon? lol. the jobs these companies outsource to other countries?
seriously spend two seconds critically thinking about your nonsense before you speak it.
Free buses would have a much larger return on investment.
movement of the population is streamlined. meaning more people will go more places and spend their fares in a larger variety of locations without having to worry about cost.
you save a shit ton of money because you no longer need all that infrastructure for charging people money for fares and the ongoing maintenance related to such.
population increases due to QOL improvements. meaning more revenue for the state via property/income taxes.
its durable. population based revenue is much more reliable than investment nonsense.
the only difference between the corpo subsidy and free transit is:
the corpo can walk away for any reason leaving the state holding the bag.
the corpo concept has a shorter chain of cause/effect: give money to corpo -> corpo fails | corpo gives roi -> $
vs free buses -> increases desirability of the area & reduces on going costs of infra -> population increases -> more tax revenue.
in short: free buses absolutely would bring a return on investment it’d just be harder to measure the precise return because its part of a non-linear system.
I don’t think we need to have an either or mentality. We need to break out of the idea that things need a perfect, direct ROI. That just reinforces financial overlords to do layoffs and to favor capital and the rich.
$700M in free busses could open up a world of happier people, access to better jobs and better Healthcare through better access.
There is more to ROI than direct financial returns, and we have to get out of the language of the venture capitalist. You say that it is “just generally improving the quality of a society”. That IS a return on investment. And it’s more important in my mind than a financial gain. We need to start treating happiness like it’s something worth pursuing. We say money can’t buy happiness, but then base all our decision making on money like it’s the key to everything.
You aren’t wrong, but you need to remember that a lot of people don’t give a shit about helping other people. Any argument that uses “good for people” as the basis of argument is going to fail with them.
Are you aware that their vote counts as much as yours? And many of them are in Congress, so their vote counts for a lot more than yours?
Don’t get me wrong, I would love to simply excise people without basic empathy from any role of leadership or influence. But until we do that, we have to deal with them.
Short sighted ROI - only businesses create ROI? Residents do not? Would decreased accidents, decreased cars on the road, increased resident satisfaction not also create ROI although not as easy to measure as a business balance sheet?
To be fair, 700M in subsidies was supposed to have a return on investment. Though, it didn’t.
700M in free busses would not bring a return on investment except for just generally improving the quality of society. Which I still think is better, but we do have to consider that from their point of view.
Edit: please stop replying to this comment with counterarguments, I agree with all of you and was just trying to say how it might be seen. This is getting obnoxious. I wrote it wrong and now people think I’m a capitalist cuck lmao
$700M in free buses means better access to jobs and services, which has tangible economic benefits and results in tax money coming back to the government.
I… Err… I mean bus bad car good!
It’s also just good for people. Not everything needs an roi and the economy should work for people not the other way around.
Public transit, healthcare (including dental and mental), shelter, food, water, communication (mail, cellular, internet), social community events/activities, and yes even defense is where taxes should go. There’s enough to go around to cover all of it if greedy mother fuckers would get their grimy ass hands out of the cookie jar. I hope I see the day before my days are done.
You’re just trying to be intellectually honest here, by recognizing that in theory subsidies are supposed to bring jobs and economic benefits to a region, whereas public transit is seen as a cost center. And I think you’ve been sufficiently rebuked on that point.
Anyway, upvoted because I appreciate the attempt to engage conservative fiscal policy on its own terms. It’s easy to frame it as “rich people good, poor people bad,” but occasionally we need to debate the internal logic of it so we can properly pull back the curtain and see it for what it really is, which is in fact “rich people good, poor people bad.” You started that debate, and as a result the consensus here feels more like a good-faith rebuttal and less like a sarcastic shot from the hip (which my original post definitely was).
I think free busses would have a return in investment (apart from quality of life).
A better connected city, transport wise, opens up new job opportunities or places to go for citizens, which can increase tax revenue.
More people using busses also means less cars (probably) and by extension, less pollution, which can save costs.
I’m not sure how much of a return those, and probably other stuff would give, but I think it’s more than nothing.
Maybe someone knows better.
Not just employment, but all sorts of things. For example, the NYPL runs all sorts of free classes at its various branches. People could also more easily access other services. Plus, if the buses are free and reliable, it could also provide incentive for people to just go out and do stuff that they might otherwise not. Even if you’re doing okay financially, something like the cost of gas and parking, in addition to the actual tickets, could discourage you from going to a concert or a baseball game. If there’s a convenient enough bus option for you that doesn’t cost anything, you might go out and spend some money you otherwise wouldn’t have.
Plus, I would argue it would also make a city more attractive to anyone looking to move to a new city, which could bring in more money to local businesses and expand the tax base for the city.
You have a good point. If money is no longer a barrier to transport, the entire city would be open to everyone. That would increase incentive to have outings.
This right here is the problem. We allow the GOP and the Murdochs to dictate the meaning of these things and gaslight the people into believing the fiction that some billionaire industrialist stooping to grace a city with their business is worth more than thousands of regular folks just getting to work, doing their jobs, living their lives, and making our society work. It needs to be plastered everywhere that not only do we not need billionaires or even multimillionaires but that they are quintessentially harmful to our country and our society.
P.S. if you aren’t prepared to deal with every Tom, Dick, and Jane replying to your comment to argue every little thing then you should give up commenting cause people are gonna argue no matter what. It’s how ideas get around.
Don’t forget, Cuomo was also ready to give Amazon $3 billion in incentives to build their sweatshop HQ in Queens, and AOC led the charge to kill the deal. Why should NYC pay such an exorbitant amount to a Sociopathic Oligarch for the privilege of exploiting their citizens? Let him use his own money to exploit his workers.
If you want to be fair, you’ve got it completely backwards. Tesla wasn’t going to be bringing in much in the way of actually paying proper taxes or treating the residents well but we have actual real-life examples of free bus experiments boosting the local economy.
It’s not even about being nice for the residents, though that is obviously a major positive, it’s just the only smart thing to do. It’s literally stupid as hell to not at least try it from a financial perspective and the only thing that stops people is because it would be a kindness.
Only replying because of the edit.
If free busses get more people to more store to spend more money, that won’t provide an ROI?
“I want to be anti-transit but not get pushback.”
define investment, who was going to pay the state’s ROI? elon? lol. the jobs these companies outsource to other countries?
seriously spend two seconds critically thinking about your nonsense before you speak it.
Free buses would have a much larger return on investment.
the only difference between the corpo subsidy and free transit is:
in short: free buses absolutely would bring a return on investment it’d just be harder to measure the precise return because its part of a non-linear system.
I don’t think we need to have an either or mentality. We need to break out of the idea that things need a perfect, direct ROI. That just reinforces financial overlords to do layoffs and to favor capital and the rich.
$700M in free busses could open up a world of happier people, access to better jobs and better Healthcare through better access.
There is more to ROI than direct financial returns, and we have to get out of the language of the venture capitalist. You say that it is “just generally improving the quality of a society”. That IS a return on investment. And it’s more important in my mind than a financial gain. We need to start treating happiness like it’s something worth pursuing. We say money can’t buy happiness, but then base all our decision making on money like it’s the key to everything.
There is more to life than ROI. People need to realize that. We can do so much better for everyone.
I think I worded it wrong. I completely agree with you.
You aren’t wrong, but you need to remember that a lot of people don’t give a shit about helping other people. Any argument that uses “good for people” as the basis of argument is going to fail with them.
Who gives a fuck. If someone rejects the premise that good for people isn’t good policy, fuck em. I’m tired of pretending their opinion matters.
Sorry to be spicy but like… I just don’t think we need to validate them or pay attention. Let’s build something not placate them.
Are you aware that their vote counts as much as yours? And many of them are in Congress, so their vote counts for a lot more than yours?
Don’t get me wrong, I would love to simply excise people without basic empathy from any role of leadership or influence. But until we do that, we have to deal with them.
Short sighted ROI - only businesses create ROI? Residents do not? Would decreased accidents, decreased cars on the road, increased resident satisfaction not also create ROI although not as easy to measure as a business balance sheet?
Yes of course they would, please read the edit
You post on Lemmy, and expect to not get replied to?
Do you think this is a bubble echo chamber?
Wake up
But that’s not what they said…?