almost like capital requires the prosperity of some to depend on the immiseration of others to maintain itself!
-
-
Replying to @uhshanti @sashaperigo
retirement income for 1.6 million California public sector union workers & their families do not materialize out of nothing.
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @sashaperigo
that VC in some contexts has made itself (for the time being) indispensable for seniors who have little in the way of social safety nets, doesn't really blunt the critique of venture capital's function in society, let alone the point about public transit Sasha is making
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @uhshanti @sashaperigo
I have basically always supported large-scale investment in public infrastructure/transit. That said, if you yourself were in charge of a large, complex system like MUNI, would you rather spend taxpayer
$s on maintaining that system, or experimental, unproven skunkworks projects?1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Could you imagine if SFMTA diverted funds away from the core system and spent it on unproven tech/services, where it is unclear if there is consumer demand for it -- what would the backlash from riders be? What would it be from taxpayers?
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @sashaperigo
well, for one, we agree more large-scale investment is needed -- in a broad sense this is kind of like the question you asked about early childhood vs free college, in that it sets up a hypothetical tradeoff scenario. but ok, let's go with it
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
if the point is that VC $, not public funding, is ideal to absorb the risk from untested transit technologies that might go bust: presumably once the transit is tested, if it becomes integral to a city's infrastructure as a last-mile solution, it should be a municipal service
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
otherwise the basic conflict between something needing to be universally accessible and the company's obligation to its investors remains. it's rational to lament the big $$$ that goes into these companies compared to transit funding; I'd argue it's irrational not to do so
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
and AFAICS private transit companies do not go into the business of transit with the intent of municipalizing themselves
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
if the idea is, well, let transit companies test out these technologies' viability and then roll out a public option once there's proof of concept or w/e, there are still consequences for segregation of services that undermine the goal of universally accessible public transit
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
That’s kind of the history of SF transit. MUNI was started by private train operators and then the lines were municipalized decades later when they weren’t financially viable compared to cars...
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @sashaperigo
MUNI was a goal that was set out during a number of strikes by streetcar workers that were brutally put down (in typical strike fashion) starting right after the 1906 fire. it was a protracted battle between the city and United Railroads in the courts and on the streets
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
in fact, we didn't get tunnels to the westside under private streetcar companies because they wouldn't pay for that kind of infrastructure
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes - 1 more reply
New conversation -
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.