IT PROBABLY SHOULDN'T BECAUSE THIS INTRODUCES PERVERSE INCENTIVES INTO THE SYSTEM AND RAISES COSTS, HOWEVER LARGE SUBSIDIES FOR DISADVANTAGED PEOPLE ARE A GOOD IDEA AND LIKELY TO ACHIEVE A SIMILAR EFFECT.https://twitter.com/MeetMckayla/status/1232354933879513088 …
There's quite a bit of research on perverse incentives, I'm most familiar with the ones in health. You'd probably save some money yes, but people tend to devalue free things so I think you'd also have to spend more on cleaning and maintenance
-
-
I'd argue that probably the best trade-off is heavily subsidized public transit that is free to disadvantaged groups. That way no introduction of perverse incentives but also a lot of support for people who can't afford it
-
Although there is a good counter-argument I'm aware of that says that if you make things free for everyone, including rich people, the system benefits because rich people will defend/invest in it. I'm not sure socially what would be the best solution tbh
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Hmm, not sure you can extrapolate from health to transport with confidence... are trams in the centre of Melbourne where they are free nite vandalized than the outer ones? Context is probably important my understanding is it has failed in US cities but succeeded in some European.
-
Probably true, I should read up on the topic
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
No you get more services to more places. The transit system will never really make money. You can choose to pay shareholders via subsidies or you can just pay for transit. You get the money back several times over in the economy
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.