this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2024
81 points (100.0% liked)

news

23488 readers
714 users here now

Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.

Rules:

-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --

-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --

-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --

-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --

-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--

-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--

-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --

-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] OgdenTO@hexbear.net 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Unfortunately, it is true. What doesn't make sense from a leftwing perspective is making life less affordable for people who depend on driving to get to their work. Rich people don't give a shit about a few extra dollars to drive. Yes they'll whine about it, but it doesn't affect them really. Who it does affect is the maintenance worker who has to pay more to get to their work site with their safety equipment and tools, or the technician who comes in from out of city to work on fixing stuff.

[–] waluigiblunts@hexbear.net 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Who it does affect is the maintenance worker who has to pay more to get to their work site with their safety equipment and tools, or the technician who comes in from out of city to work on fixing stuff

I think commercial van drivers can afford to have their millionaire clients pay a few extra dollars for their services.

Who congestion pricing does affect is maintenance workers who would save tens of minutes per trip from reduced traffic congestion. In these tens of minutes, these workers could get to other clients and earn way more money instead of sitting still in unrelenting gridlock.

[–] OgdenTO@hexbear.net 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Look, I'm tired of this, as I feel like I'm just repeating myself. This is a market-based attempt at a solution. And it's basic econ101 that supply and demand market efforts just make whatever it is unaffordable for the poorest among us.

A standard leftwing position should be against market solutions to problems, unless there's very good evidence, and consultation, that this is what everyone wants.

[–] waluigiblunts@hexbear.net 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

You are still talking about how cars and driving should be affordable when they should not be.

Cars are an expense that are paid for in the blood of humans and animals. Cars literally kill millions every year. Air and noise pollution kill more.

While you are in support of cars, I am against cars. You think that poor people should own cars because of equity. I think that poor people should not own cars because nobody should own cars.

There is an ongoing global ecocide going on right now. The Anthropocene is the sixth mass extinction. I do not care that you care that cars should be affordable. Cars should not be affordable. Externalities should be priced in. Every time you drive, the world pays in blood.

Fuck cars.

P.S. I'm not sure where you got the idea that to be leftist is to be anti-market, especially to be opposed to all market-based incentives. China does a lot of that stuff. Maybe you should look into it. Congestion pricing is a market-based solution that is empirically shown to work, as seen in London and Stockholm. Please read the linked article next time before you comment. No investigation, no right to speak.

Also, I don't really know what to say in response to this. First of all, it's not "basic econ101" that "supply and demand market efforts just make whatever it is unaffordable for the poorest of us." An example of a free market good that has been made affordable to the poorest amongst us are basic smartphones. They cost like $20 now. But also I'm not sure how this is relevant at all to the topic of a congestion tax, which is specifically supposed to suppress demand to increase the amount of fixed supply that can be allocated to each user.

This is a market-based attempt at a solution. And it's basic econ101 that supply and demand market efforts just make whatever it is unaffordable for the poorest among us.

[–] OgdenTO@hexbear.net 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

You can hate cars all you want. I see where you might have got the idea I love cars, but in fact like a reasonable person I look at car-centric infrastructure as a bad thing.

However, like a reasonable person, I can also see how workers are tied to that infrastructure. Workers need cars to hold jobs in today's society. Making driving more expensive makes it harder for working class people to get to their jobs.

I don't really know how much more straightforward I can be.

Bringing in environmental considerations to this seems on the surface like it's relevant but it's not. Yes, everyone needs to stop driving cars. Increasing the cost of driving will mean that people who have the ability will think about other methods of transport. Many people cannot, and making cars more expensive just puts the burden on poorer people to survive.

At some point, I think it's important to break down what talking about increasing the cost of driving as an environmental win actually means. It means that poorer people will not be able to afford to drive, and so will lose their jobs. The rich don't give a crap about a couple of bucks extra - they don't ride public transit for entirely different reasons.

Anyway, thanks for telling me very aggressively that I'm wrong, dumb, uninformed, and should not have an opinion. I actually think you haven't thought through your views and considered what effect environmental policy can have on vulnerable people. And if you think that means I support cars, well I'm not sure what to tell you.

[–] OgdenTO@hexbear.net 1 points 4 months ago

Actually, this is a good overall view on where I'm coming from. This is about Toronto, but it's overall the gist I'm (poorly) attempting to communicate:

https://www.socialist.ca/node/3223

[–] OgdenTO@hexbear.net 1 points 4 months ago

Here's another good one, but about London. Similar gist.

https://socialistworker.co.uk/news/can-congestion-charges-work/

Also, there was one I posted in a different comment specifically about NYC.