What are we going to do about the homeless?

I did not say that. I pointed out that we need workers for the infrastructure improvement that we so badly need.

But, I'll also say that our next generation needs more and better education, because the good paying jobs in the emerging economic sectors all require more education - automation, information, clean energy, etc.

Your "collectivist" comment deserves ZERO respect.

I don't know you. I don't know your employment. I don't know your education.

As for me, my career has been in high tech. And, that means I continually work to stay on the cutting edge - an effort that is NOT included in my work day. It's just what is required after work in order to stay on top.

How much education do you add into your hours after work?

Or, are you just having a beer after work as the world passes by.

 

Those locations aren't OUTSIDE the cities, they're just outer suburbs. Why isn't there public transport to those locations already?

 

Are you genuinely saying that there are no Americans who talk up socialism as a great thing? Quite seriously?

 

On what planet is public transport free? Never heard of such a thing. A one way ticket to the city can be $10 here. Buses are around the same, sometimes more.

 

The point here is that there isn't.

Those suburbs don't offer cheap housing. Plus, those suburbs are often quite politically conservative and are not interested in ensuring there are cheap housing options.

In Portland, OR, a suburb to the southeast took political measures to ensure that Portland's light rail transportation system was blocked from reaching them.

 

Absolutely.

Obviously, you can find individuals who tout revolutions of various kinds, but they have zero traction in America, which is DECIDEDLY ANTI Socialism.

 

OK, so it's made to ensure that low income people can't use the transit.

I thought you were in favor of that some posts back.

 

Reagan? Seriously, that sounds like Reagan.

 

They're not 'touting revolution', they're kinda just constantly praising socialism.

 

It's John Winthrop, 1630.
Reagan drew on it to capture the deep roots of his vision.

 

Many note that it IS a social program. The government provides the trains.

So, then they get confused as to what Socialism means and forget that gigantic amounts of what we do is through the government, but built, maintained and administered by private enterprise.

Obviously, no corporation is going to go on its own to build a train through a city to suburbs, no matter how much it is needed.

 

On the contrary, that's about as cheap as it gets to travel 50+km. It's designed to be accessible to the poorest, and is definitely used by the poorest as well as the wealthy. Who wouldn't want to pay $10, instead of the possible $20+ to drive?

 

No they are not.

I think you are confusing Socialism with the fact that governments do provide solutions that are needed, but that free market enterprise absolutely will not provide.

 

Our trains/buses/ferries etc are built and maintained by Govt. There are a few toll roads which are somewhat privatised, but they're not common.

 

I'm not confusing anything. I'm repeating what I hear from many Progressive Americans.

 

1) Why? Why was it never built? Our rail networks have been in place for many many decades .. as have our bus routes and ferry crossings.

2) They do here. Our property values decrease the further you travel out from the city. EG a run down 2 bedder on virtually no land, close to the city, will cost you $2m - while the same house in the outer suburbs would be a quarter of that, AND have much more land.

 

That's not the right comparison.

You have to do the analysis from the point of view of the budget of those who don't have a job, have minimum wage jobs, have families, etc.

You have to look at this from the point of view of capitalism.

The question is whether there is a market for the product.

Here is a study of how many UCLA college students are homeless:
https://risefree.org/news/rise-survey-on-student-homelessness-at-ucla/

How many of these students could afford to pay your $20/day for transit?

 

In WA (where there are a dozen or so car ferries) government took over ferries because they were absolutely needed and private enterprise failed at providing that service.

As for tolls, here the toll dollars go to the government, but maintenance of bridges and roads is done by private enterprise that bids for those jobs. And, it isn't necessarily the case that the toll dollars pay the full freight, because there is economic benefit in encouraging transit to be less than full cost.

 

we did but now they need some

so really what would you do?

cut back on cash benefits, tiny homes built on near the current encampments, remember the canned pork and cheese, instead of food stamps or MRE! it should be humane. clean. safe with patrols

 

Well, as you know that kind of "analysis" of what a country believes is without merit.

 

out of pocket not our monies

 

Before food stamps there was a food assistance program that sent boxes of surplus food to those in need. US agriculture loved that.

That system failed.

 

You need to back that up. A LOT of Republican "charity" goes to art museums, ballet, symphonies, etc.

Besides that, a key element government provides is a distribution system that covers the country. Plus, it provides a standard that is held to even in times of economic downturn (such as 200 when need rises but donations to the needy do not rise.

Individual providers can do that.

 

We're discussing people who WORK in the city, remember. Of course they can cover the $100 per week for transport. Remember they're playing half the rent by living outside the city. Instead of paying $3000 - $4000 per month, they're paying $1500. Even adding in that $400 a month for transport, it puts them way ahead.

 

Why did it fail?