Oh hey, also the same thing with environmental issues

  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    132
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    But to take it a bit further, high capacity public infrastructure can go a long way towards improving the lives of low income working people.

    Trains, buses, and subways can eliminate the need to own and maintain a car. Public housing can get people off the street, where they won’t be at risk of harm from interpersonal violence or exposure to severe weather. Public education and public health care have more benefits than I could list.

    At an individual level, “Just give people money” is an immediate and useful generic panacea. But at a more macro level, geographic access to grocery stores and clinics and colleges and bus stops and permanent homes and factories matter just as much.

    • otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Clearly, the Venn of those who’re empowered to make those changes and those who’ve played at least a couple hours of SimCity is two estranged circles.

    • Maeve@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      3 months ago

      It needs to be quality of those things, as well. And they know this. It’s designed to keep us too tired, broken physically and mentally to get off the wheel, and not just under it, either. There’s enough for everyone, just some few want to hoard it like decades worth of paper, not because it may come in handy, just because bloodsport is still entertainment, no matter how well they dress it.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        3 months ago

        It needs to be quality of those things, as well.

        Oh absolutely. I have a bus stop on my corner, but it only picks up every 2 hours and then doesn’t go to downtown.

        There’s enough for everyone, just some few want to hoard it like decades worth of paper, not because it may come in handy, just because bloodsport is still entertainment, no matter how well they dress it.

        Kropotkin was saying it over a century ago. Bread Book, baby.

        People periodically ask how a country like Denmark or New Zealand or Japan can have such high standards of living relative to their individual incomes. Or why a country like the UK or Saudia Arabia can be so rich and yet appear so poor from a street level view.

        So much boils down to who has access to quality infrastructure.

        • Maeve@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          True enough. With apologies to mlk2, I may not get there with you, but I’ve seen it in my dreams. I hope we get there, with or without me. If you do, guard it vigilantly.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      3 months ago

      But to take it a bit further, high capacity public infrastructure can go a long way towards improving the lives of low income working people.

      Trains, buses, and subways can eliminate the need to own and maintain a car.

      The real problem is zoning. If the density is high enough (and mixed-use enough), people can just fucking walk places whether you’ve got public transit or not!

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        3 months ago

        Even in areas where we have zoned for dense real estate, we’ve built these four lane boulevards with barely a crosswalk between them.

        At some level, we could use a little zoning. Pedestrianization isn’t going to happen via the free market.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      At an individual level, “Just give people money” is an immediate and useful generic panacea. But at a more macro level, geographic access to grocery stores and clinics and colleges and bus stops and permanent homes and factories matter just as much.

      FTFY.

            • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              6530 Starlink satellites in low earth orbit tell me that if there is such a location, it is not within the contiguous 48 states. If they have the money, there is an option for the Internet access. Giving them the money remains the solution.

              • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                6530 Starlink satellites in low earth orbit tell me that if there is such a location

                Don’t satellites require receivers?

                • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  As far as I know, connecting to the internet requires some kind of device or another. I don’t know if any Internet access point that operates on telepathy.

                  One thing that all of those accessing devices have in common is that “money” is required to initially obtain them, and/or to maintain connectivity to the serving provider.

                  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    One thing that all of those accessing devices have in common is that “money” is required to initially obtain them

                    Even more important than “money” tends to be “electricity”. Which is why public investment in cheaper and cleaner power sources is the baseline for any kind of urban development.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          According to the meme, my response is supposed to be “Fuck you guys.”

          Personally, I’m a proponent of UBI. An economic system where everyone receives a small, regular income, automatically, no strings attached, no means testing, no limitations or requirements on how it is spent. That income should be enough to meet the individual’s basic sustenance needs. Not enough to be comfortable, but enough that you would not need to rely on your savings if you were out of work for a few months. Enough that you can take a chance on better employment, starting a business, going back to school, without worrying about homelessness.

          With our current system, you start off Monday morning below the poverty line, and 85% of us cross it before the end of day on Friday.

          UBI says you cross the poverty line before you leave the house; every hour you work is for disposable income, not basic survival.

          Yes, the solution really is “give them the money”.

          • PunnyName@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            I really don’t know why you’ve got so few upvotes, and equitable down votes, because this is great and succinct.

      • rhombus@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        But at a more macro level, geographic access to grocery stores and clinics and colleges and bus stops and permanent homes and factories matter just as much.

        Here’s some emphasis for you. “Give them money” is a part of the solution, but it can only go so far when they lack access to places to spend that money. And no, delivery is not a real solution. It’s a very expensive bandaid.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Here’s some emphasis for you. “Give them money” is a part of the solution, but it can only go so far when they lack access to places to spend that money.

          Places to spend it are pointless until they have money to spend. But if they have money to spend, people are going to come and try to get it, and they will be bringing the infrastructure with them. You don’t have to build it; it will build itself once the people have money to spend.

          • rhombus@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            First, there are more than enough resources to tackle multiple issues at a time. Just because the money is the more important aspect doesn’t mean we can’t also invest in things to improve people’s quality of life.

            Second, this:

            You don’t have to build it; it will build itself once the people have money to spend.

            Is probably the most ridiculous rebuttal you could have come up with. People will bring the infrastructure with them? It will build itself? Where the hell do you think these things come from?

            • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              probably the most ridiculous rebuttal you could have come up with. People will bring the infrastructure with them?

              Yes.

              Where people need food and have money, someone builds a produce stand, a convenience store, a grocery store, a supermarket, whatever other infrastructure the consumer base will support in their quest to do business. They want the money the consumers have, so businesspeople build the places where consumers can spend their money.

              But business only works when consumers actually have money. When they don’t have any money, nobody is interested in supplying them with goods and services, and nothing gets built.

              Put the money in their pockets, and watch businesspeople trip over themselves to sell them shit.