Mass Transit: A New Socialist Ideal?

[ChicagoChicago]

I don't really see the link to socialism, particularly when production and compensation are typically the two biggest drivers behind socialistic ideals.

Subsidizing mass transit is, to me, all about an alternative to the car.

[Qubert]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

Or we could be partially projecting what we believe in order to fit a sociological theses. To whatever degree cars do keep out the supposed riff-raff that that is now a rather antiquated notion for those that support autos on that basis given that many of the poor in this nation even have autos.

True, but what's real and what is precieved are two different things. Maybe it's different where you are, for you're right, thuggery does have wheels. But in decades past and even to a small extent today, the preception that transit attracts lower-income individuals is still there

I see the attraction in wanting to make it about about social issues but a more more practical reason is because for many the car is simply a familiar and fantastic item. That doesn't mean that cars should be catered to or that governments shouldn't invest much more in mass transit for a variety of good reasons.




However caricaturing people who really like a cars benefits as merely racist seem to be armchair psychologist who want to put their fingers in the ears and deny the mobility, accessibility, privacy, comforts, and individualism that cars can at times provide and which most grew up valuing.

I think I should have worded my original post better:

for 90% of people, your assesment is spot on. I wasn't talking about you or most people. Just the rabid 10% who have a pathological fear/loathing of urbanity and transit. I have never denied the convenience and freedom the car provides, nor do I hate cars or the people who prefer them. I'm sorry if you took it that way.

But on the flipside, what I said was very, very real, and to deny it is also "Sticking fingers in your ears".

[emathias]

Originally Posted by racc

Who cares if its is "socialist" or not. In a world of falling wages and limited energy and natural resources, it will be the only option for many people. Soon, we won't have the luxury of silly debates like this.

Forget to take your meds today?

Wage growth is limited by the current recession. People who claim long-term wage stagnation since the 1970s for the working class often forget to add in the value of non-wage benefits.

Precisely because the U.S. is currently wasteful with energy, our energy outlook is rosier than some places. As we improve efficiency, our savings return gains faster than if we were already highly efficient.

"Natural resources" is a catch-all phrase that means very little on its own. Most "resources" have alternatives or can be replaced with something else. In general, commodities (or at least the function they represent) become less expensive over time. Even for food, a 10% increase in the retail cost of food would translate into an enormous increase in available investment capital for farmers, enabling all sorts of improved growing methods to expand the food supply with methods that aren't currently economical. A 10% increase in the retail value of food would cost the average American 1% of their income and the average European or Latin American about 2% of their income. And considering a lot of people in developed countries don't watch their food budget very closely, if it rose enough to be noticed, people would probably just start driving harder bargins and squeeze overpriced retailers, not their own budgets.