TLHLIM

sturg33 said:
Thank god our universities and professors are adequately educating people these
Click to expand...
Truly shocking that Mamdani would be out of touch with the working class. Lifetime going to elite schools, never having to hold a real job, Harvard educated parents (one an Academy Award nominated filmmaker, the other a Columbia professor). Surely all the ingredients were there!

The tell that he was full of shit was when he made "free" NYC buses a central plank of his platform. Folks who actually use NYC public transit know it's already "free" if you simply choose not to pay.
 
acesfull86 said:
Truly shocking that Mamdani would be out of touch with the working class. Lifetime going to elite schools, never having to hold a real job, Harvard educated parents (one an Academy Award nominated filmmaker, the other a Columbia professor). Surely all the ingredients were there!

The tell that he was full of shit was when he made "free" NYC buses a central plank of his platform. Folks who actually use NYC public transit know it's already "free" if you simply choose not to pay.
Click to expand...
To be somewhat fair, this might actually be more of a defense of the policy than it is against it. If NYC public transit can run with skipped fares, why not just reduce the amount of fares collected?

Otherwise, I think the criticism is spot-on. My only real rub here is that there still doesn’t really exist a viable alternative to the out-of-touch elites.
 
mqt said:
To be somewhat fair, this might actually be more of a defense of the policy than it is against it. If NYC public transit can run with skipped fares, why not just reduce the amount of fares collected?
Click to expand...
The MTA is projected to have a $652 million budget deficit by 2028. Ultimately someone is going to pay for the fare evasion.

Not to mention the societal harm caused by the erosion of respect for the rule of law.
 
Tapate50 said:
Hahahah


If people can steal it from why charge a price at all?

This guy
Click to expand...
Actually, kind of? If the current solution is apparently to just dismiss the theft of a public service and that public service can run under that framework, it might make some sense to re-evaluate how we can both enforce the law and ensure public transit is an option for those who need it.
 
acesfull86 said:
The MTA is projected to have a $652 million budget deficit by 2028. Ultimately someone is going to pay for the fare evasion.

Not to mention the societal harm caused by the erosion of respect for the rule of law.
Click to expand...
Right, but Mamdani isn’t to blame for that erosion, and changing the way they fund the MTA is actually one of the ways to resolve that specific issue. Whether or not it’s financially viable is a much different story, but I fail to see how Mamdani’s proposal here would play into that specific issue.
 
I think there is a solid case to be made for so-called free public transportation. Making it free reduces administrative costs and increases convenience and ridership. Ultimately, the idea is to reduce some very large negative externalities associated with private transportation (pollution and congestion). It has some redistributive aspects that some (the commies) will find attractive.

Focusing on the word free is way of sidestepping what is in fact an interesting public policy question. Everyone (those who favor and oppose this policy) understands it is not free.

I often take a bus to and from work that is "free." It works pretty well for me. And I know it is not free.
 
Last edited:
Tapate50 said:
So just run a larger deficit.

Brilliant
Click to expand...
Or shift money from something else or tax something differently. Again, I’m not actually commenting on the viability of this proposal. I have no earthly idea what the budget in New York City should look like.

But I do contend that fare evasion is moot to the discussion at best, and potentially supportive of the argument for reducing fares expected. Any of the ills described for not enforcing fares are not exacerbated by having fewer fares. Worst-case scenario you’re going to have less lost revenue from fare evasions by virtue of not having them. It’s a specific metric that is aided by this sort of practice.

I think reliable and efficient public transportation is among the best things you can spend money on, because it increases opportunity for the labor force to be mobile and stay productive. There are enough barriers, external and internal for the working poor to being productive, why not do what we can to take a major one away? I think a lot of private businesses should voluntarily contribute to public transport directly for turnover reduction.
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
I think there is a solid case to be made for so-called free public transportation. Making it free reduces administrative costs and increases convenience. Ultimately, the idea is to reduce some very large negative externalities associated with private transportation (pollution and congestion). It has some redistributive aspects that some (the commies) will find attractive.

Focusing on the word free is way of sidestepping what is in fact an interesting public policy question. Everyone (those who favor and oppose this policy) understands it is not free.

I often take a bus to and from work that is "free." It works pretty well for me. And I know it is not free.
Click to expand...
How about we throw up more barriers for society's worst actors to commute to peaceful areas rather than less
 
Tapate50 said:
Just continuous lowering of the bar
Click to expand...
How is this lowering the bar? A robust public transportation system allows for freer mobility of labor, and all things equal, the lower the cost of a service, the more it is typically used. The same people who would avoid paying fares for public transportation are also likely to be costing the city much more in other public benefits or even police labor, of which fare evasion itself contributes.

Again, if there isn’t the money for it, there isn’t the money for it. But I do think it has significant potential economic advantages when compared to other services provided by a city.
 
sturg33 said:
How about we throw up more barriers for society's worst actors to commute to peaceful areas rather than less
Click to expand...
You gonna put a yellow star on their foreheads so we know who they are? Or is skin tone or socioeconomic status a sufficiently good filter?

At least this discussion has served the purpose of clarifying why some around here object to making public transportation free. For that alone this has been an illuminating discussion.

There is an s word at the heart of the objection. But it is segregation not socialism.
 
nsacpi said:
You gonna put a yellow star on their foreheads so we know who they are? Or is skin tone or socioeconomic status a sufficiently good filter?

At least this discussion has served the purpose of clarifying why some around here object to making public transportation free. For that alone this has been an illuminating discussion.

There is an s word at the heart of the objection. But it is segregation not socialism.
Click to expand...
Why is it controversial to wish to live with and near like-minded people who share my values, vs people who are complete opposite and wish to vote away everything I care about?

My neighborhood is a gated community. That's a barrier for non residents to get through. Is that segregation?
 
I didn't say it's not ok to want to be in a community of like-minded people. Perhaps your neighborhood or town can post a questionnaire to make sure any potential neighbors pass muster.

Afaik gated communities are legal. And they are a good option for those who prefer to be surrounded by people they are comfortable around.

And I perfectly understand how from your perspective public transportation (whether free, subsidized or not) would be an undesirable thang.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top