Use Budd cars to bring in the employees. That was done in Toronto when the freight yards were moved from downtown to the boonies.
I personally no longer feel safe going outside my $3000/mo apartment after dark despite being a tall man because there are mentally deranged homeless who, quite literally, roam the streets attacking vulnerable people (my wife was assaulted by one and police didn't care), and frequent reports of robbery at gunpoint. Prices in stores in downtown are 2x what they are in nice suburb areas an hour's drive away because of unprosecuted theft. It is literally cheaper for me to _order Instacart and tip a driver_ than it is to purchase from local grocery stores.
And what are my elected politicians doing during this time? Sending out emails to their constituents about "mitigating inequity" in how roads are resurfaced and renaming manhole covers.
No so fast Hitler Jr.
The problem is the government is an inefficient black hole of money, I also pay around 3k in rent but live in a nice neighborhood but the only way to do that in San Francisco that I'm aware of is by renting a 8k condo with roommates. I have an activist history in Argentina but after about a year of trying to find a group that's doing something I feel identified with in San Francisco to tackle what I believe are the cities problems, the only groups I found have basically been getting a decent salary from the government for them and their friends and whatever is they are doing is clearly not working. I don't want to start naming names and discussing policy because it just doesn't go anywhere. I just really really really don't think this is an income distribution problem, it looks like one, I believed it was that three years ago, I tried to understand it better and do something, and now I think it's not. It's that "the homeless" are the justification for a useless bureaucracy that's in the best case not really changing anything and in the worst is going to make it worse in the long term, all by living off half of every software engineers income that we are already forced to redistribute.
Well, yes.
But more than that, you should stop electing shitacular government officials.
Otherwise it's going to be so unprofitable for you to not be in government. Once you're in government then you might as well just fix the problem yourself.
> Well, yes.
Can you explain why you think he should spend more than four hours a day, every day, working entirely for someone else’s benefit?
Beyond that, he lives in a society, is only able to make that money through the support of that society. Note he chose to move to California, so clearly he's gaining a lot from California.
Not sure what to make of that; I work more than 40 hours a week, but my total compensation is also above 500k/year.
There somewhere I can work less, but maintain that level of compensation?
I am ok with that, but I'd rather work as a clerk on the DMV instead of my current job which is rather stressful but has the benefit that if I don't screw up I'm retiring early.
Taxes go to communities. Profiting for yourself only defeats communities.
>But more than that, you should stop electing shitacular government officials.
Sounds like you didn't read the whole comment
> Sounds like you didn't read the whole comment
There's more to an election than just going and voting.
Yeah there is, a lot, most of it illegal if you are not American. You can't contribute money to political organizations including certain type of non-profits and technically you can be deported even for protesting. Volunteering for a campaign is also a big no-no.
I can volunteer and donate to organizations that have a clear political bias even though they are not partisan, and already do.
For that matter, why does Pete Buttigieg not do something? Isn't he in charge of federal transportation? Isn't there a big transportation traffic jam? Isn't LA a really important part of that?
For that matter, why hasn't the president replaced the Secretary of Transportation for lack of confidence in his ability to get anything done?
>replaced the Secretary of Transportation for lack of confidence in his ability to get anything done?
Well he announced a 6 month paternity leave pretty much immediately upon being appointed to a cabinet position (where tenure tends to be 1-2 years).
So between that and having roughly zero knowledge of transportation issues to begin with, his lack of "ability to get anything done" should surprise no one.
I would agree that Buttigieg didn't come in with much expertise, and he sure hasn't generated great results. But there's no need to exaggerate the length or timing of his paternity leave to make these points.
Honestly, I think the more damning point is that the public was unaware he was on paternity leave until a month or so after he'd left. If he had been taking charge of the supply chain crisis before leaving, his absence would have been noted much sooner.
Iirc the 6 months # was from a GMA/Today show interview, but presented more as a hypothetical, before they even announced the adoption, as a comment on the process of trying to adopt and equality.
>Honestly, I think the more damning point is that the public was unaware
Unaware at the political peak of trying to pass the "infrastructure" bill and with the supply chain issue becoming daily national news.
Ironically, said "transportation" bill included a failed provision for a paid paternity mandate.
Did you ever consider that he's totally incompetent for this job?
https://ourpublicservice.org/political-appointee-tracker/
In particular:
> President Biden put forward more nominees in his first year than President Donald Trump and about as many as President George W. Bush and Barack Obama. But it took on average 103 days for the Senate to confirm a Biden nominee, compared with 100 days for Trump, 80 for Obama and just 48 for Bush.
That various departments and agencies are taking longer to get things done shouldn't be surprising when the appointments are either being slow walked or held up.
Buttigeig is simply not relevant in this discussion.