If we did that, there would be widespread famines, social unrest, and we would eat every wild animal, chop down every forest, and strip bare every fruit tree before enough of us died to regain an environmental equilibrium. Humanity doing well is a slow ecological disaster. Humanity doing poorly would be a fast one.

Why would this change anything?

Reminds me of the meme where a girl noted she no longer allows men to hold her stun gun because 100% of the time they shock themselves to see if they can take it.

Hard disagree. SC is NC but without the good parts.

Calling Colorado the midwest 🤮

The general urbanist consensus is that parking structures are a good idea sometimes.

Basically, if you are trying to revitalize your downtown, a government owned parking garage can function as a replacement for parking outside existing shops. This way, a previously walkable downtown can drastically reduce its existing parking while still accommodating a largely motorist clientele.

On the other hand, they are a less good idea in already dense and valuable urban centers. Urban parking lots are already expensive. Urban parking garages are enormously expensive. And they are counterproductive to the aim of getting people out of their cars and getting them to take transit into and around downtown. Especially in larger cities, the case for public parking garages is fairly difficult to make, since if an area is popular enough to justify a parking garage, the land for the parking garage could probably be put to better use in the form of a public park, housing, or businesses. And if a parking garage is truly needed, then a private developer could build one and turn a profit.

The problem is that probably the best place for parking garages in a city would be at a popular transit stop near the urban/suburban divide, to serve as a transition point between auto oriented and transit oriented commuters. But if you built a transit stop at the urban/suburban divide then hopefully that area will be experiencing infill quite quickly, and transit ridership will access the network via foot. Meanwhile, if you build a transit station far out… why build a parking structure, which is expensive, when you could build surface parking, which is cheap? And as a bonus, surface parking can be sold off easily to developers so they can build housing, whereas parking structures would require significant retrofitting to fit this need.

/c/Georgism

I drink 3 scoops of Folgers per day, so I’d say that’s about optimal.

Seriously, this isn’t something science is gonna help you with. Just tool around and play it by ear. Caffeine is a pretty mild drug, so its benefits will be mild, as will its detriments. Afaik, there is no significant negative impact to caffeine intake beyond just poor sleep. Like, it doesnt give you cancer. So fooling around and seeing what works for you isnt gonna send you to an early grave.

Even caffeine’s impact on sleep quantity/quality, I’m kind of doubtful of. Sure it is obvious - but is it really significant? Many cultures around the world have a habit of drinking tea or coffee before bed, which seems like an odd choice if it meant that everyone constantly felt like trash the next morning - so I wonder if other lifestyle factors could improve sleep quality more than caffeine intake decreases it. Seems like a bit of a stretch, but I like to stay open minded.

The problem with parking minimums in real time

New construction isnt required to build parking. That doesn’t mean they won’t build parking. Instead, they will build the amount of parking they expect to be profitable. This is very reasonable. At a certain point, a given amount of building space will be worth more for car storage than human living space. At this point, the developer will build parking instead of housing. Thus, an appropriate amount of parking is built at an appropriate price for the community, and housing becomes significantly cheaper.

Cars are great. Building your whole society around cars is shitty and inefficient. Basically what you are saying is

My job, my father’s job, and my fiances job would not exist if not for digging holes and filling them back in again. It would next to impossible for any of us, in 3 different fields, to complete our jobs without digging holes and filling them back in again.

Even a child can understand that this kind of inefficiency is a waste of valuable time, energy, and resources. If your job requires a car to do (like conducting research in remote wildlands, or picking up garbage), then… great. No one has a problem with that. But if what you are saying is “if society didnt waste billions of dollars requiring people to have cars, then my job wouldnt exist”, then your job shouldnt exist. Thats fine. All the people employed in these fields can find different jobs that make the world better instead of worse.

I have a friend who works for this company (or some other company with the same goal, I dont remember). She says that the mammoth with help maintain the ecosystem’s native ground mosses (or something) to combat climate change.

I tried to point out to her that (1) that is a huuuuge stretch, (2) this sounds like a bunch of VCs just thought the idea was super cool and wanted to throw money at it because “duuuuude, dinosaurs!!!”, (3) this is the exact plot to jurassic park, and (4) eventually the VC will dry up and her company will sell their tech to the super-rich to genetically modify their offspring, creating a permanent genetic class heirarchy in humans.

And then she told me she didnt want to hang out with me anymore.

I cant argue with this point

Well… fuck those guys. I’m gonna keep using my parable. There are nazi punks. I’m not gonna stop listening to punk music just because some nazis like it.

Also, that wasnt a koan, btw. Koans are paradoxical riddles.

Eh, I read the little parable when I was a teenager or something, and that is essentially what led me down the path I followed. Figured it might be helpful to others.

A fair point. If presented as a package, I would still support these propositions, though. Like, ideally I want everything funded via land value and pigouvian taxes - but I’ll take my wins where I can get them.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the payroll tax would apply equally to all workers while funding transit, yes? In this case, it functions as an incentive for all people to take transit, since they have already paid for it.

On the whole, this looks like a great step in the right direction. Sure, it could be better - but dont let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I don’t think the oligarchs even think about us that much.

Anyway, you are doing the thing where you make up a sympathetic scenario to excuse people for being terrible at personal finance. I’m not saying outliers don’t exist. And I’m not saying that increased income inequality and the diminishment of the middle class isn’t a problem. I’m just saying, jesus fucking christ, admit when people could improve their circumstances by just making better choices.

Long ago, there were two brothers who grew up side by side in a small villiage, wishing for something more. The elder brother left home first, recieved good schooling, and became a high-ranking bureaucrat for the king. He wore the finest robes, lived in a great house, and had many men to do his bidding, though his brow was furrowed with worry and frustration. Many years after he’d left home, now fat and with the first streaks of grey in his hair, the elder brother happened upon a monk sitting beneath a tree on the outskirts of the city. The monk sat next to his bedroll, his clothes in tatters - but the bureaucrat was shocked when he saw the monk was his own brother, who seemed to have barely aged over the many years since they’d last met. “Brother!” the aged bureaucrat exclaimed, “oh how many years since I’ve seen you! And to find you in such a wreched state! How have you come to be here?” The younger brother replied, smiling - “why, brother, I walked here. I carry my bed roll and my rice, and where ever I find myself where the sun sets, that is my home.” The elder started, confused, and said “My brother, truly you must turn your life around and rise above this terrible existence you have found yourself in. Why, just follow my example - if you learned to serve the king, you would not need to live on mere rice!” The younger replied with a cheerful smile, “Ah, but brother, if you learned to live on mere rice, you would not need to serve the king.”

I recommend the book Early Retirement Extreme, and the Mr Money Mustache blog.

Our housing shortage is a serious issue, and we should work on resolving it.

But at the same time, this is still not a real reason. After all, many people live in these same places with lower wages and still don’t go into debt.

Again, there are certainly people out there for whom it truly is not their fault. Like, they’re underwater on a house they bought in SF when prices were at their highest and have to stay there to take care of their ailing mother who can only see one specific doctor in the whole country - or whatever. And while these cases are tragic, they are not the majority.

The majority of these cases are going to be people who made a conscious choice to live beyond their means, who are unwilling to tighten their belts and give up their luxurious lifestyles. Yes, there are outliers. But most of these people are, like, suburban moms working as project managers in Omaha who are driving their new Buicks to Starbucks every morning. Sorry, but I don’t have sympathy for these people. Buy a used Toyota and brew your own coffee, it’s not that hard!