Cursing the government does not fix potholes. Spray-painting them does
imagenotfound.writeas.com
imagenotfound.writeas.com
What kind of system has work to be done but not enough jobs... it's a world where work is not focused on satisfying our needs but rather focused on maximizing profit. As long as we're choosing to make work about making someone else wealthy rather than satisfying all our needs, we'll never have enough jobs to get the work done.
Potholes are a visible manifestation of society saying it's more efficient to prioritize capital than care.
How though. Roads are a public good and fixing them should come from the governments pocket. How can you say the problem is private industry, when the government is doing such a good job collecting our tax money. You should be asking where is that money going. And then you will see its because of mismanagement by the government. Trillions in debt, for what?
Potholes are a visible manifestation of society saying it's better to vote for people who vibe with you, than people who can provide essential services.
I agree that the government ought to work for the public good, and not doing so is mismanagement and corruption. But following the logic of the parent poster, the postulate would be that the mismatch between what the government ought to do and what it does is an outgrowth of a society that values maximizing profit over satisfying needs. Which I find hard to deny if we are a bit flexible with the question "whose profit is maximized". This is just a different way to arrive at the word corruption, but it provides a frame for possible societal causes for that widespread corruption
Anti-tax groups have long followed the 'Starve the Beast' strategy (and their opponents are completely incompetent and fall for it every time):
1) Cut taxes
2) Point out the resulting deficit, say we're spending
too much, and cut services
3) Repeat
https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/general-government-s...
BTW Swiss public spending is lower (32 per cent), and Swiss sidewalks and roads are uniformly nice. At the same time, Germany is at 48 per cent and it has a big problem with aging infrastructure, railways, bridges etc. Swiss rail authority regularly refuses delayed German trains at the border in order not to cause chaos in the reliable Swiss railway network. Given the 32 vs. 48 per cent of public spending, you would expect it to be the other way round, but it isn't. The mapping between the volume of public spending and quality of public services is not that simple.
Maybe the problem in the US is that too much money gets siphoned away by various legal or illegal means. Famously, whenever places like California or NYC try to build something like a new subway line or a new high-speed rail, their project budgets balloon into absolutely insane volumes, much higher than comparable projects in France, Italy or Japan, and the main reason is that various special interests need to be satisfied, from the construction unions to various NIMBYs.
With such a flawed model of public spending, higher taxes will only result in higher waste.
And the US is inefficient at building some things (subways) and probably more efficient at others. Again, it's cherry picking unless we have broader data.
> With such a flawed model of public spending, higher taxes will only result in higher waste.
As I said in the GP, there is waste (inefficiency) in everyone and everything, and larger organizations unavoidably have more. The cherry-picked examples don't prove the US and every local goverment in it are somehow less efficient, but certainly there is inefficiency.
But the statement "higher taxes will only result in higher waste" is logically wrong: higher taxes (and assumed higher spending) will lead to more waste - unavoidable for anyone and any org - but also more productivity; you can't have one without the other. E.g., if 15% of every dollar is wasted then higher taxes increase both waste and output. The US does have roads, schools, healthcare, sewers, etc., and even some urban light rail, paid for by taxes. The money does produce things, and many of those things can only be accomplished with taxes.
On the basis of what your comment, the US should cut all taxes because they are all waste. That's probably not what you mean but that's what some anti-tax groups say and what they do - cut everything regardless of outcome, which is what has been done on a national level recently. The simplistic answers are dangerous and not useful.
Nope, I didn't express a conviction that this is a linear function from 0 to 100. My statement should rather read as "If, at current, the American public sector is unable to provide good roads and sidewalks while redistributing 40 per cent of the domestic GDP, I find it hard to believe that the situation would improve much if it redistributed 45 per cent instead."
Good roads and sidewalks aren't that expensive. The Romans and the Incas could maintain them with a more primitive economy, and a well-run modern city should have no old potholes anywhere.
I was kinda shocked, when working in South Africa, to find that the roads and sidewalks there were often in much better shape than ones I'd seen in the US. And from the other side, the only place I've ever seen roads as patched and potholed as ones in US cities was in rural Russia.
A different way to think about this would be to say that a lower tax rate for capital gains is a trick (incentive) to get the wealthiest people to invest their wealth in the market, which provides capital for people trying to grow the economy and provide jobs, rather than spend their wealth on luxuries for themselves. In this way, we have an economy focused more on the needs and wants of regular people, and less on producing what wealthy people want.
Can you spot a flaw in that line of reasoning?
I vaguely remember Adam Smith talking about directing the vanity of the rich towards spending great amounts of money on proper objects in exchange for recognition. 4:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejJRhn53X2M
You forgot the most important part. Let me add it for you: "Low capital gains tax incentivizes investment..., while creating a job market, [and, more importantly, providing goods and services that are beneficial to society as a whole]."
> The former creates more liquid assets (stock) with no clear connection towards meeting the needs of regular people. The latter creates more solid assets with no clear connection towards meeting the needs of regular people.
These claims are demonstrably false. Paper assets provide no tangible benefits. You cannot eat a stock certificate, nor can you use it to heal an infection, nor can you ask it to repair your refrigerator. To receive a tangible benefit such as these, you must consume a good or service. And what is the economy but a machine that produces the goods and services that the people within it consume? Therefore, it is the mix of goods and services consumed (which equals that produced) that determines how society benefits. And, as you've already admitted, a low capital gains tax incentivizes the wealthy to buy paper assets instead of luxuries for themselves. But luxuries are real goods and services, aren't they? In other words, doesn't that policy incentivize wealthy people to consume less and, therefore, claim a reduced share of economic benefits? Consequently, doesn't an increased share of economic benefits go to "regular people"?
I think enshittification, cost externalization, and rent-seeking behavior cancel this out, muddying the connection towards meeting the needs of regular people. For example, we needed cap-and-trade to internalize the costs of acid rain back onto power plants.
>These claims are demonstrably false. Paper assets provide no tangible benefits.
I think my rhetorical bait worked: you seem to agree with incentivizing luxury spending on real goods and services (instead of incentivizing capital gains)? Adam Smith argues to take that vanity and drive it towards public recognition. For example, many universities put the names of rich donors on the opulent buildings they donate to build. That's good! (My college's music building was amazing!)
>In other words, doesn't that policy incentivize wealthy people to consume less and, therefore, claim a reduced share of economic benefits? Consequently, doesn't an increased share of economic benefits go to "regular people"?
I thought trade doesn't make a zero-sum game? Money supply is a zero-sum game (I think), and I want money sinks to spread the money. We want them to spend their stored money to generate more tangible wealth for all. Luxury goods often push the limits to what can be done, advancing technology and generating wealth while also depleting their money stores. But while investments and venture capital might also advance technology and generate wealth, they continue to concentrate the money supply to the rich. Not good!
While I agree that the factors you cited are drags on the economy, I think historical evidence suggests strongly that they do not cancel out net benefit to society in general. The fact that poor people today benefit from refrigeration, air conditioning, electronic computers, vaccinations, safe anesthesia, cancer drugs, dialysis, HDTVs, cell phones, and a host of other things that the wealthiest people of yesteryear could not have purchased with all their wealth, suggests that the net trend of the economy has been to produce benefits for all of society, including regular people.
> you seem to agree with incentivizing luxury spending on real goods and services (instead of incentivizing capital gains)?
No, that is the opposite of my original claim. My claim, put simply, is that a low capital gains tax shifts the economy's output away from luxuries and toward meeting the needs of regular people.
> I thought trade doesn't make a zero-sum game?
But resource allocation is a zero-sum game. In any given year, there are only so many productively employable atoms and human hours. If less of those resources are being used to produce luxuries for wealthy people, they can be employed to produce goods and services for regular people.
If I got that right, here's my best shot at a contradiction. If resource allocation is a zero-sum game, money (liquid assets) determines resource allocation, and low capital gains tax further concentrates money to the wealthy (I would need to prove this, and in recent years the distribution of wealth has increased towards the wealthy), then the wealthy gain a greater share of resource allocation next year.
This might not result in problems, as historically the increases in resource production have increased regular people's resource allocation in absolute terms, but I see no necessity in this trend. I might argue that the poor can lose resource allocation in the zero-sum game, but I'd need to prove that (something like, inflation hurts poor people more than the rich? incomplete thoughts). I could also argue that currents trends place financial assets (intangible) above production assets (tangible), slowing the benefit to regular people.
I claim that if the wealthy were to put their money in luxuries (things that don't give capital gains), they would control more allocation in a given year, but then they would decrease their share of resource allocation the next year. I also claim that resource production would increase just fine, as technology initially benefiting luxury production expands toward general production.
> Let me try and repeat it back. Resource allocation is a zero-sum game within any given year, resource production increases yearly as technology increases, technology increases more as capital increases, so a low capital gains tax will increase resource production more than a high capital gains tax.
Actually, this line of reasoning is tangential to the thrust of my argument. Let’s get to it now:
> If I got that right, here's my best shot at a contradiction. If resource allocation is a zero-sum game, money (liquid assets) determines resource allocation, …
Okay, here’s what I think you’re missing. Money does not determine resource allocation. But spending money does! Only by spending money do you get to consume goods and services. Therefore, by getting wealthy people not to spend but to invest almost all of their wealth, we get them to give up their claim on where today’s resources are allocated. They control wealth but not resource allocations.
> … and low capital gains tax further concentrates money to the wealthy, …
I believe that this claim is more or less true.
> … then the wealthy gain a greater share of resource allocation next year.
But this claim does not follow. Wealthy people gain a greater share of the wealth allocation next year, but they do not spend that wealth, nor the new wealth they gain each year. They spend only a tiny fraction of it – and invest the rest. Thus, most of this “extra” wealth that wealthy people gain is invested, with resource allocations from that wealth to be determined by spending across the population in general, not by the wealthy who invested it.
> I claim that if the wealthy were to put their money in luxuries (things that don't give capital gains), they would control more allocation in a given year, but then they would decrease their share of resource allocation the next year. I also claim that resource production would increase just fine, as technology initially benefiting luxury production expands toward general production.
Let’s say that the wealthiest 1% of people control half of all wealth. If we forced them to spend that wealth, much of the economy’s resources would be redirected to provide goods and services to the top 1% of people. For a very long time, the remaining 99% of people, especially the lower 80%, would find it very hard to purchase goods and services, for their spending would be dwarfed. Resource production would increase, but I doubt it would be “just fine.” Factories producing mega-yachts, doctors providing exotic cosmetic surgeries, and master chefs preparing one-of-a-kind meals with luxury ingredients such as hand-massaged beef fed grasses from the richest soils on Earth… These are not easily adapted to produce things that regular people need.
By getting those wealthy people to invest their wealth instead, we get them to give up their ability to dictate where today’s resources go. In exchange, they (as a group) get the promise of earning more wealth tomorrow from their investments.
I agree, however, that concentration of wealth is a problem for society. When a small number of people can, in effect, buy the government with pocket change, that’s not good. But a low tax rate on capital gains is only one contributing factor to the concentration-of-wealth problem.
Cheers!
>Money does not determine resource allocation. But spending money does!
Very good point. Investors have some say as to where the money goes, but you're right. Often said that the economy runs on debt.
>They spend only a tiny fraction of it – and invest the rest.
Well said. I suppose their wealth only represents a potential for resource allocation.
>If we forced them to spend that wealth, much of the economy’s resources would be redirected to provide goods and services to the top 1% of people.
Under most theories of value, this extreme demand and labor would cause the price of such luxury goods and services to skyrocket! The money would quickly distribute to the hands of those who provided such goods. Then the masses can spend the money.
I now see our discussion as a classic debate of supply-side vs demand-side economics. I'll steal "the unity of means and ends" from the anarchists for this: I fully believe that the masses must have the resource allocation potential in order to achieve greater wealth for all. That exists in a positive feedback loop with businesses, increasing technology and production, and increasing the general standard of living. But, investing gives the resource allocation power to the businesses. With enough wealth and power, large businesses can keep the investment cycle flowing between businesses and owners, underpaying the workers and buying out competitors. At the most extreme result, a vertically closed system where the workers must meet the needs of the business (company towns).
>These are not easily adapted to produce things that regular people need.
So many goods start out as expensive luxury goods. Refrigeration, commercial airlines, air conditioning, computers, HDTVs, cell phones...
>When a small number of people can, in effect, buy the government with pocket change, that’s not good.
Then they morph government policy towards further enriching themselves, hurting the masses in the process. Very bad!
Would you advocate for a 0% capital gains tax? Or a capital gains tax-break? How would you calculate the ideal number? (I would place capital gains tax included in income tax.)
I wouldn't advocate for any particular tax rate for capital gains without it being part of comprehensive fiscal and government reform. The point I was trying to get across in my original comment was that, when people talk about raising the capital gains tax because they think it's an obvious way to tax the rich without affecting working people and that the only reason we're not already doing it is because the rich have rigged the system, the reality is way more complicated. There are no easy fixes. Changing the capital gains tax substantially (outside of more widespread reforms) is likely to have unwanted consequences. And even with widespread reforms, we're likely to suffer unwanted consequences.
Reality is way more complex than talking points.
Thanks for chatting.
(I think that's a good way to analyse any policy - the 1st order effects are the ones you can count on; the Nth order effects are just BS that magically costs nothing, but gets others to go along - 'the people will pay for this stadium for my privately owned franchise (1st order) and it will bring business to the community (2nd order).' That's repeated over and over, and the 2nd order effect is well known to not happen, but it sometimes gets enough votes from those uneducated in the issue.)
I think in the 1980s the Reagan administration called it 'trickle-down economics', such an incredibly revealing name!
Can you offer a substantive argument that getting the wealthy to invest their wealth instead of spending it on themselves is a policy that benefits only the wealthy and makes life worse for everyone else?
Not gp, but if the investment is made in either a non-productive asset, or in the secondary market toi buy share in a company that is downsizing/stabilizing their investments (share buyback is very often a good tell), then the wealth does not benefit society in general but either inflate a bubble, or separate the owning class from the working class.
That if is doing a lot of lifting. What percentage of investments do you believe satisfy that if condition? If that percentage is p, then do you agree that it's generally beneficial for society, for approximately 100% − p percent of the time, when wealthy people decide to invest in the economy instead of spend on themselves?
(Further, even when companies downsize, don't they release their resources, such as people and equipment, back to the market? And doesn't the evidence of economic history suggest that, on the whole, the market tends to take up resources, including those released from downsizing companies, and use them produce goods and services that benefit both the owning class and the working class? For example, for most of history, even the wealthiest of the owning class lacked electricity, air conditioning, refrigeration, radio, television, electronic computers, the internet, cell phones, HDTVs, antibiotics, vaccines, generic drugs, medical imaging, DNA testing, video conferences with health care professionals, and so on. Today, don't even working people benefit from these things? So, even when your if condition holds, the claimed consequence, that such investments "either inflate a bubble, or separate the owning class from the working class" seems hard to believe.)
While a worker is beneficial to society 100% of the time.
In the US, the Republican party for the last 40 years has had a policy of starve the beast. They actively choose policies that provide worse services/break the governments ability to provide services/pile on unsustainable debt so that they can make the very same argument you are. Government is broken (yes, because Republicans have chosen to intentionally break it for 40 years. It is hard for a country to function when half of politics is intent on making the country worse in order to reach their political agenda).
> What kind of system has work to be done but not enough jobs
Any system that isn't designed from the outside? Any system that's goal is not simply maximizing employment? Surely you can imagine a scenario with two civilizations, one has 99% employment, one has 80% employment, but the people in the 99% employed society are, on average, worse off?
> As long as we're choosing to make work about making someone else wealthy rather than satisfying all our needs
Most people would not say the number of potholes they encounter or the level of park maintenance is so poor that their needs aren't being met.
You do a bad job filling the hole. Some hits it and their car breaks. They sue you and the city. The city attorneys successfully push the blame onto you since you're a contractor. You have no liability insurance because you're not a professional because that's the whole point of this thing, right? You're on the hook for the car, a few grand for a medical check-up, and a spurious mental anguish claim. You declare bankruptcy and on the way back from your last visit with your attorney, you hit another pothole and your car breaks. Full circle.
A system where citizens complain about potholes but don't want to chip in to pay people to fix them - that is, they won't pay the taxes necessary. I've seen some very clean, well-financed, high-tax places in the world.
That's just one part of this issue but it's a necesssary one. And before you say, 'government just wastes money', I say, 'that's just an meaningless talking point against chipping in.' First, everyone and every organization wastes money; larger organizations have both much more power to do things but more inefficiencies, unavoidably - that applies to large software companies too. Government inefficiency can be dealt with if we want to do it; if you don't pay attention and don't vote, others will be very happy to do without you.
a system that doesn't provide enough education for its citizens. this is why education needs to be made available to everyone, and not just those who can afford it. especially, if you get education for free you also won't need to get a high paying job to pay off your debts.
The general populace aka the voters are too apathetic and absorbed in their little consumer lives and tribally motivated political quibbles to know or care that so much tax money is wasted.
Stop voting for the people who have consistently allowed this to happen. We give them a tremendous amount of money. They misallocate it, waste it and allow fraud to happen to the tune of billions.
This has nothing to do with this communist/socialist view of the world that I see emanate from your comment. This is plain and simple: Government incompetence, fraud and theft.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with private industry.
This also has nothing whatsoever to do with unemployment rate. You are not going to take a 57 year old bank teller who was let go and put her to work fixing potholes on the highway.
And the connection to maximizing profits is even funnier. Do you realize that a company that maximizes profits pays more taxes? Do you realize that a person who maximizes profits through higher salaries or investments pays more taxes? Which means that the government has more money to allocate towards fixing the problems you noted?
If candidates want my vote, they can offer literally anything as a concession. I'm not holding some purity standard.
> You are not going to take a 57 year old bank teller who was let go and put her to work fixing potholes on the highway.
You doing think there are other needs people have? Social needs, where years of customer service experience would be desirable? Or financial advice? Potholes are a stand in. Think bigger.
Think clearly, correctly and grounded in reality.
I don't think corruption is a left/right axis like that.
And I don't know, maybe it's early days, but Mamdani seems less corrupt than his predecessors.
If only there were a system to align incentives toward a common good under the assumption that everyone is corrupt and will therefore seek to maximize their own interests....
You need some kind of government for such things as education, healthcare, roads... fixing potholes...
Well, in a purely capitalist economy, the answer would be property rights, competition, and liability. For example, a road would be owned by someone, and you could sue that someone for damages if the road damaged your car. A road owner could discharge liability risk by purchacing insurance, and insurance underwriters could require some minimum standard of maintenance from owners in exchange.
> You need some kind of government for such things as education, healthcare, roads... fixing potholes...
The whole point of the article that spawned these discussions is that society has already delegated the responsibility for fixing potholes to the government, and the government is doing a crappy enough job of fixing potholes that "art activists" need to make potholes into public art projects to get the government to actually do its job.
> This resulted in eliminating funding to the county's senior-citizens council, town offices going unheated during the winter, poorly maintained roads filled with potholes, and the Grafton Police Department being reduced to one officer (the police chief), who said he was unable to answer calls for service as the town had no money to repair the one police vehicle left. Other issues were inconsistent basic public services, such as trash collection.
Most roads are unprofitable individually, but still beneficial to the greater economy. It's very unrealistic to expect private individuals to build and maintain them. And the logistics of paying for every street one drives one, and the profiteering this enables sounds hellish.
There was a time when the government was able to build and fix stuff. We should probably get to fixing that, by kicking out the parasitic contracters, actually hiring competent civil servants at competitive wages, taxing the ever-increasing wealth of the top 1%, etc. Not by privatizing roads, which is a nonsensical idea that failed miserably anytime it was tried.
The golden age of America (and the West) happened when redistributive taxation was maximal and the government had the means and the will to improve citizens life. We've been privatizing stuff ever since the 1980s with arguably disastrous results. It's time we came back to first base.
> actually hiring competent civil servants at competitive wages
I think most people would be open to increasing cash government salaries if the rest of the job also matched the broader economy - at-will employment, no public sector unions, etc. You trade some of your cash compensation in the government for the cushy benefits, sub-40 hour work week and lots of time off, and the near impossibility of being fired especially once you've been there for a few decades.
The golden age of the West happened due to a war-time manufacturing boom that would put the industrial revolution to shame. If you're making a ton of money and your marginal tax rate is 90%, what incentive do you have to work another ten hours a week or open another factor or release a new product if you're only keeping 10% of what you earn?
If you say so, but I'm yet to meet such an individual. Anytime someone talks libertarianism, it's some kind of weird Randian objectivism, that is still somehow socially conservative, and they align themselves with the GOP more often than not.
I would consider myself pretty liberal (as in, pro-liberty). I just believe that to experience true freedom, equality is necessary. It's not enough to have the freedom to do X or Y, you also need to have the means to. Why should some people be freer than others just because they happened to be well-born?
> the system was more capitalist, it would get fixed faster and better.
The system is getting more capitalist. That's why we're having more and more potholes. After decades of neoliberal austerity and deregulation, there ain't any money left to fix shit.
What a government employee used to do in an hour of minimum wage now requires 10 government contractors who charge ludicrous sums for useless prestations, and don't even end up delivering because they've successfully lobbied themselves out of liability! You know, in the name of efficiency, since as we all know the government can't do anything by itself, and the private sector is that much more efficient.
> I think most people would be open to increasing cash government salaries if the rest of the job also matched the broader economy - at-will employment, no public sector unions, etc. You trade some of your cash compensation in the government for the cushy benefits, sub-40 hour work week and lots of time off, and the near impossibility of being fired especially once you've been there for a few decades.
I would argue that the rest of the economy should follow the standards of public servants, rather than degrade their working conditions to match this terrible job market.
> The golden age of the West happened due to a war-time manufacturing boom that would put the industrial revolution to shame.
That's a partial myth, a manufacturing boom alone is meaningless if the generated wealth isn't redistributed. Markets have never been this healthy, yet regular people aren't getting any richer.
Same thing for the industrial revolution. It didn't amount to much for the general population until the big labor movements and the invention of unions.
> If you're making a ton of money and your marginal tax rate is 90%, what incentive do you have to work another ten hours a week or open another factor or release a new product if you're only keeping 10% of what you earn?
Look, it worked in the 50s. I am not interested in the classic economist's argument of "it works in practice, but does it work in theory?". You can probably find books written by people much better informed than I am. For instance, do you know about Thomas Piketty?
Have you ever driven on a cobblestone street? There are a few in the city where I grew up and it's pretty obvious why we don't build that way anymore. It's like driving on an uneven dirt road, you're lucky to get above 25MPH consistently lest you want to risk damaging your car.
Nobody was going 55-75mph+ with multi-thousand pound vehicles on cobblestone streets.
Potholes lead to vehicle damage, property damage and death.
If society can't afford roads and therefor can no longer afford to conduct commerce, society can't afford to exist.
Don't get too locked in on the specific.
If we're not going to allow that, there's no need for money at all. We'd vote on what needs doing, and it would always be something like mending roads, and we'd all have to knuckle down and do it, through a conscription-like system, on pain of pain. It would never be fixing the broadband, though, because broadband is a crazy imaginative project, like building a pyramid, so there wouldn't be any.
Spraypainting the pothole distorts the triage process and makes a pothole jump the queue, putting it ahead of more severe or older issues than it otherwise would have been.
It might not be zero sum, if it causes the agency to act with more haste to avoid embarrassment, but it seems like it could be close? Plus it probably takes more resources to clean up the spraypaint afterwards.
Most road maintenance crews probably aren't sitting around with abundant materials and machinery neglecting their duties, so I guess I just have some questions about what the real cost of this tactic is. What's giving.
Assuming that's true, the most likely explanation is that they are working on Big Projects. Pothole maintenance is (probably) behind these projects, even though it can be done without affecting their timeline.
What makes you think that?
Potholes have different causes. For example if there is a slow water leak that's compromised the road sub base that needs to get fixed first or you're just throwing money in a hole.
Presumably there is an intelligent process that leads to this. What alternative is there?
Also, the person of a certain class, ethnicity and age who spraypaints is called an 'artivist'. For someone else it would be called graffiti and they might be arrested for vandalism.
Why are we excusing civic inaction because it might cause an unexpected schedule change for road crews? Why am I supposed to be so full of concern for the ease of their schedule that I'm ok with broken streets?
In short, c'mon, man.
I've gone to our municipal planning meetings for these types of things, and there is always at least one person there with this sense of entitlement. They want to talk about "excusing civic inaction" or similar just like you, but when shown "this is what the crews are working on", the retort is "yeah, but that's not the pothole on my street" (with the usually unsaid "...so why should I give a phuk about those people").
These people usually show up at other meetings to complain about having to pay taxes to pay for those repairs. But that's another little joy of local politics...
I find it very hard to fault that person coming to the meeting wanting their street fixed early. What real sin are they committing except noticing that there’s a piece of infrastructure that they depend on that’s messed up? The city does not get a pass just because it claims to be busy elsewhere.
If I believed that the city schedule was optimal in every way, I could be convinced that nothing should change as a result of that person‘s complaints, but I don’t believe that. And even if I did, that person is providing a valuable service in the case that the city made a mistake somewhere. They do not know that the schedule is optimal (if it even is). They know their street is messed up.
I never said a single word about painting the pothole; I think it's a clever hack. I should have tried that when we were negotiating with the city about scheduling our much needed street repaving. But since you clearly assume whatever your opinion is is sacrosanct, I suppose it's not surprising you would assume I agree you are unquestioningly correct.
The city does not get a pass just because it claims to be busy elsewhere.
Yes, it does, particularly if it is. At least for the adults in the room. Resources are finite. They have to be allocated. They have to be paid for. No, that's never "optimal" for everyone, especially for people for whom 'optimal == 'what I want, done immediately, even at the expense of other citizens'.
I think the idea that the city is already allocating resources optimally is pretty historically contingent, to put things mildly. Even in cases where it is, it's making *choices* about what to allocate and where and citizens are allowed to think those choices are wrong. In fact, well functioning cities use that information to better understand where those choices are wrong.
If you want to be mad at someone who is annoying at city meetings because they can't see your picture that's fine, but don't conflate that with adulthood. It's certainly not the only bigger picture to have.
I'm just compulsive in pointing out trade-offs, and this blog post (understandably) doesn't have an interview with the civil servant on the other side presenting their perspective, so I wanted to raise the question here in case someone knew how it worked.
https://cbsaustin.com/news/offbeat/greater-cincinnati-man-ch...
[0] https://local12.com/news/local/man-cleared-charges-spray-pai...
At what cost? The process is the punishment.
Some areas are even worse, because they'll use the event (e.g. "we have rampant crime now that criminals are spray-painting and ruining our potholes!")...as an excuse to then drastically increase funding for law enforcement agencies! Its bonkers and sad all around!
I lack your laudable sense of decorum, so I'll post the link...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/street-artist-wanksy-spray-...
There have been copycats...
https://www.vice.com/en/article/guy-paint-penis-potholes-new...
In less...anatomical...inspiration, there's a guy in Chicago who took this idea straight to the fine art phase:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2022/11/11/pothole-...
One thing I've noticed in my travels is that it's rather difficult to have a pothole on a train track.
That was the start of Amnesty International, which to this day, simply asks people to write a letter when they see an injustice. The spray painting potholes story has the same theme: "Better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness."
You'd think a low-pass filter of a collective database of this data would quickly draw attention to the legit "bumps in the road"…
And you would think a city municipality could use this data (within a geofence, sorted by "popularity" and Newtons) to determine which potholes to tackle.
As someone else pointed out, Waymo (or Waze, or Google Maps, or Apple Maps) ought to adopt this as an opt-in feature. You would get rich pot-hole data fast.
It was also turned into a short documentary series. https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgBne2KTlDUzDQasv65PtT9Lq...
Next to where I live there is a sign to caution drivers because of kids playing. The sign was very worn to the point that it’s just white from the distance of a driver. So I repainted it with an ink pen, making the kid’s head into a balloon. It draws a lot of attention now. I think the speed bumps in the road probably do more for the safety, but the sign does more for laughs.
EDIT: Realized I meant the video below but both are great: https://www.ted.com/talks/janette_sadik_khan_new_york_s_stre...
Are they wrong? This is the equivalent of getting customer support from an otherwise unreachable tech company because your story went viral. It's the exception that proves the rule, not the status quo.
Undeniably it's a good reminder of the power of publicity for accountability, but at some point the news media won't be interested in airing another "neighbors taking action" human interest story.
Even if this trick works, would it be ethical, knowing it draws money away from other areas? What would be the road SLO we would agree be acceptable?
https://stirileprotv.ro/stiri/social/groapa-ucide-o-campanie...
https://www.wweek.com/news/dr-know/2023/04/29/is-it-against-...
/s