• 0 Posts
  • 21 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 2nd, 2023

help-circle








  • I’d be willing to bet that for most Americans the main barrier to commuting by bike is the threat of cars and lack of bicycle infrastructure as a whole.

    I ride my bike to class often, and when I do it’s great. Well-maintained trails and frequent bike racks make it very convenient. My college is good with bicycle infrastructure, and I happen to be lucky that there are good trails between my apartment and campus. A faster ride would be nice, but I don’t see it making me bike more often. It wouldn’t affect the things that prevent me from biking on the days that I don’t: weather, time of day, or how I feel physically.

    Despite how much I bike to class, I’ve never biked to the grocery store, restaurants, or any other place that’s not on campus. This is because I’d have to ride on busy roads without bike lanes. Once you get closer to the center of the city, there are bike lanes, but they’re just painted. Actual separated bike lanes basically don’t exist in the US, which means that cyclists are still at risk of getting hit by cars even when bike lanes are present. A faster bike wouldn’t fix this. Investment in infrastructure would.

    I do understand the appeal of eBikes and I recognize them as a viable alternative to cars. But I only think people will make the switch if they live somewhere that’s already got the necessary infrastructure to make their commute safe and efficient. This is not even close to the majority of Americans. If we want people to move away from cars and toward bikes, we need to think of infrastructure first and the bikes themselves second.








  • There’s lots of stuff that could be considered innovation that is intentionally stifled due to competition laws or security concerns.

    I agree that some innovation can be harmful. I guess what I meant was “we should avoid disincentivizing innovation unless necessary.” The way I see it, though, job lots from automation is both inevitable and fairly easy to fix (as you said, UBI), so there’s no reason to try to stop it from happening.

    Really, I think automation should be encouraged. It frees people from usually-undesirable jobs and allows them time to pursue different careers or other interests. As long as we have ways to deal with the unemployment I think it’s a huge positive for people.

    they should have to continue paying taxes for those roles because the newly unemployed will need government support.

    I fully agree that there will need to be a tax increase to cover support for the newly-unemployed, but why not make that a general increase on businesses and wealthy individuals? If anything, this would be and incentive for automation as a way to decrease rising business costs.

    Innovation has removed jobs before, and we dealt with it. I don’t see businesses being taxed for using computers instead of human calculators. I don’t see why this innovation is different.