Does the modern urban infrastructure hurt the poor?
A hundred years ago, when the average level of wealth was lower than today's, most people could not afford cars. As a result, most lived near work, near a subway line or tram line, or walked or cycled to work. The lower incomes meant not only lower personal disposable income, but less government revenue too. As a result of that, governments could not afford to build or maintain suburban infrastructure. You either lived in the city or in the country. And with more people walking or cycling to work, less money was needed for road construction. And with more people making use of trams, subways, etc., government did not need to subsidize the public transportation system as much since the free market supply and demand took care of that. Essentially, if you could not afford a car, you were in good company, and the urban environment had evolved accordingly, thus making life quite comfortable for those who could not afford a car.
As our overall level of wealth increased, more people bought cars. And as government revenue increased owing to our increased wealth, governments responded by building the modern suburbs. This changed the face of the urban landscape drastically. Gradually, governments transformed our urban infrastructure into more car-friendly environments, making life easier for those who could afford and wanted cars, forcing those who could afford but did not want a car as a lifestyle choice to have to make tough decisions as the urban environment became ever less friendly towards them, and forcing those who could not afford a car into a bind.
We often express contempt for the modern poor who might not be able to afford a car, and often look to the 'good old days' when 'people pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and took a job, any job'. What we forget though, is that the urban infrastructure of those 'good old days' was much more accommodating to those who could not afford a car than the urban infrastructure of today. To some degree, the modern urban infrastructure, built for a higher level of wealth, essentially makes the poor more dependent on the government than they would have been a hundred years ago in a somewhat more accommodating urban environment.
While it is true that the poor of today are at least somewhat luckier than the poor of a hundred years ago, that is in no part due to a friendlier urban environment, but rather exclusively to government programmes.Remove those programmes, and the poor of today would be worse off than the poor of a hundred years ago. Whereas those of a hundred years ago might have to walk a mile or cycle a few miles to get to work, the poor of today, if they had no government assistance to help them buy a bus pass, would likely have to walk 20 miles or more to get to work everyday in the car-friendly urban environments of today.
The greatest irony of all though, is that the very people who criticize government intervention in the economy are often at the forefront in promoting more government highway construction to connect the suburbs to the urban centres.
Personally, I think it's time to cut back on government highway construction and redirect it to the building of walking and cycling paths, perhaps even tunnels so as to make them useable year-round. Even from a capitalist standpoint, seeing that it would cost less money, it would mean smaller government. And this applies from a fiscal conservative standpoint too. From a socialist standpoint, unlike roads which are beneficial only to those who own a car, these walking and cycling paths would be available to a much broader socio-economic segment of the population. From an environmentalist standpoint, walking and cycling paths consume fewer resources to build too. Such a policy should be able, if promoted properly, to appeal to capitalists, socialists, environmentalists, and fiscal conservatives alike.
It would seem that many so-called 'capitalists' like to pick and choose their capitalist pet projects.
There were people in thirdworld Northern Ontario who didn't have access to safe drinking water until we elected our first NDP government. $100 billion dollar infrastructure deficit still in Canada's largest prov. economy. Neoliberal ideology has failed many Canadians.
But it would seem highway projects take precedence over drinking water, no?
Yes, it would certainly seem that way. Taxpayer funded highways and roads amount to a massive subsidy for car companies to promote buying and using their products. Bogota Colombia of all cities has come up with an efficient city transit system for articulating buses that move people into, around and out of the cities more efficiently than most all cities in richest countries. The problem they've found is that buses are associated with lower class travel. People, they say, want fancier modes of travel, and so they've fixed up the buses. I don't buy all that, but whatever works is more important than creating more smog from cars.
Related thread: Are livable cities just a dream?
Modern urban infrastructure hurts not only the poor but the environment - and in more ways than just the issue of transportation options. For example, high land prices in urban areas exclude the poor from decent housing and create markets for slum apartments.
Today we went for a walk through Killaly meadows here in London. As part of the over all city plan for bike paths-- which is a very good one-- they've paved a sidewalk and a half wide strip through some of it. In many places, an eco nag has writen messages about how the path is bad for the environment, and asks if we drove to get there.
Maybe they should have been around when it was a playground for off road vehicles.
Never enough progress for some people.
Yet if we were trying to sell this to a capitalist, we could argue that even if we did not spend any money on public transit, the simple fact that we would put an end to highway construction would save the taxpayer money. I tried this argument on Freedominion.ca, figuring they'd support anything involving reduced government spending (they are 'principled conservatives' after all, or so they say).
Surprise surprise, I was labelled a socialist commie for supporting, of all things, reduced government spending!
When I asked for an explanation, the answer was that the reason for the suburbs was the free market. Now correct me if I'm wrong here, but though private companies may be building the roads, it's still government money paying for it.
That's what I meant when I said many capitalists seem to pick and choose as it benefits them. So much for being 'principled'.
Related thread: Are livable cities just a dream?
Modern urban infrastructure hurts not only the poor but the environment - and in more ways than just the issue of transportation options. For example, high land prices in urban areas exclude the poor from decent housing and create markets for slum apartments.
And not only that, but resource exploitation too. Though many lump it up with the environment and rightfully so, making the distinction can also help to try to sell the idea to those who don't care about the environment and pollution, but who might care at least about what happens one we run out of a nonrenewable resource.
I believe capitalists have their eyes on a much larger prize than making cars and selling them. They realized in the late 1970's that the writing was on the wall for widget based capitalism and manufacturing based on oil and its byproducts. Like socialists, capitalists now believe in economy based on services and information. Except that they believe all public services should be deregulated and privatized.
And all information should be privately owned, and information should be dispersed to the public for a free market price. Imagine a world of liberal-fascism depicted in the dystopian sci-fi movie, "Brazil" That's the utopian future capitalists are trying to create, more or less. The only thing that stands in their way is democracy. And in their world, that can be bought and paid for, too.
But my point was, how can a 'principled conservative' accuse someone of being a socialist commie for proposing spending reductions on highway construction? I thought reducing government spending was what conservatism was all about?
I thought reducing government spending was what conservatism was all about?
Like most conventional wisdom, it's a vast oversimplification. Conservatism is all about making the world safe for business and the so-called "free" market. Government is not a business and conservatives don't want it regulating the market.
But when an economic crisis hits and threatens corporate profits, conservatives are only too happy to have governments spend taxpayer money on bailouts and other means of preserving corporate privilege.
They also have no problem with increased government spending on the military, even when it's a major driver of inflation.
I thought reducing government spending was what conservatism was all about?
Like most conventional wisdom, it's a vast oversimplification. Conservatism is all about making the world safe for business and the so-called "free" market. Government is not a business and conservatives don't want it regulating the market.
But when an economic crisis hits and threatens corporate profits, conservatives are only too happy to have governments spend taxpayer money on bailouts and other means of preserving corporate privilege.
They also have no problem with increased government spending on the military, even when it's a major driver of inflation.
Yes, that's what they do, but that's not their rhetoric. They say they're fiscal conservatives and that they want smaller government. Well, if they're so principled, then clearly reduced military spending and putting an end to highway construction would be something they'd applaud.
You now what, if conservatives were more consistent with their rhetoric, they and socialists would likely be able to find at least a few points in common if they looked hard enough. But when their words don't match their actions, then there's absolutely nothing they share in common, making any kind of collaboration difficult at best, if not impossible.
my brother is an economist and once exlained the way cities grow to me. he explained it was like the rings of a tree. high cost high density being the inner most core or circle.surrounded by a smaller, tightly compacted ring of poverty, followed by another ring of less dense yet still high cost property and being surrounded again by a ring of poverty. unlike a tree he explained, the inner ring grows and overtakes or encompasses the ring of poverty, displacing it to it's eadge with every spurt of growth. leaves are like sub urban workers. they are attached to the high density high cost ring and if cut off, will wither and die. leaves of course a feed by a number of factors but most notably a root system. if you limit the expansion of root systems, you limit the number of leaves the tree can support.
seems to me that limiting the development of highways could be an answer, but some trees will not be contained. i fear that is the nature of cities, they grow and cannot be stopped.
i hear they are going to tear down the georgia viaduct in vancouver....i wonder if it means the long promised, highly debated super highway down first avenue is upon us.....?it will divide and destroy the east end and the beautiful little italy- commercial drive neighbourhood IMHO
Yes, that's what they do, but that's not their rhetoric. They say they're fiscal conservatives and that they want smaller government. Well, if they're so principled, then clearly reduced military spending and putting an end to highway construction would be something they'd applaud.
The more radical conservatives (Ayn Rand types) would say that the military is necessary to protect "their" freedom to make profits. They would also argue that highways should all be toll roads and any construction of highways should be determined by the free market. Modern capitalism, however, makes all this immaterial. It is not the production of cars which is the basis of the modern market, at least for the West, but modern finance. Speculating in hundreds of billions of dollars every second of the day (even normal time is obliterated) in all possible kinds of markets around the world is what modern capitalism does. Highways and military budgets are small potatoes to this crowd.
seems to me that limiting the development of highways could be an answer, but some trees will not be contained. i fear that is the nature of cities, they grow and cannot be stopped.
i hear they are going to tear down the georgia viaduct in vancouver....i wonder if it means the long promised, highly debated super highway down first avenue is upon us.....?it will divide and destroy the east end and the beautiful little italy- commercial drive neighbourhood IMHO
While I don't agree with your brother on the growth pattern of cities (what modern city follows this pattern, Paris, London, Tokyo? Some cities were designed by man: New York, Washington, medieval cities were built behind defensive walls, ) I agree that cities cannot be stopped, but they can be managed rationally. However, if we go on like we are, we will end up with cities like the ones in Blade Runner, and Escape from New York.
i agree , we must find a way to balance our needs with sustainibility....
There is no way to balance our needs as long as capitalism defines what is sustainable. Unless we take over the roads, the forests and the giant centres of capital our sustainability will continue to be determined by the market.
There is no way to balance our needs as long as capitalism defines what is sustainable. Unless we take over the roads, the forests and the giant centres of capital our sustainability will continue to be determined by the market.
I have to agree with this. The prescription for fake democracy is to fight for the real thing. If I see one more Sandi Rinaldo or Peter Mansbridge reporting that economists and politicians are clueless as to when the deeply flawed economic system will pick up steam and start growing again, I'll be really disappointed. It's as if we are being conditioned to believe that only big business and captains of industry have the answers and capability to turn things around for the better.
But don't look to our democratically elected leaders. We must believe that they are powerless to do anything.
Why do they have no idea? Why do they have no answers? It's a definite sign that political change at the very top of governance is in order. If our political stooges bought and paid for and connected with the money centres, Canadian Club of elites running the show have no answers and no clues, then they need dismissing from their duties as elected heads of state and cleaning from the halls of power, and new blood needs bringing in and who might at least be interested in finding the answers that elude our current batch of political Magoos.
Changing the federal or even provincial political landscape would have a limited impact on urban insfrastructure. Sure it would help, but local government would have to be involved too.
Changing the federal or even provincial political landscape would have a limited impact on urban insfrastructure. Sure it would help, but local government would have to be involved too.
But this is the neoliberal agenda, to starve public infrastructure spending in order to make a case for their rich friends to move in and takeover things with P3's, and the Liberal Party's backdoor privatization version of it, AFP's. Hundred billion dollar infrastructure deficit right here in Ontario. Our stooges want us to believe they are powerless to do anything progressive, and they've done an excellent job of it so far.