Material beanis

Yes exactly. It’s the dismissal of potential ethical concern of something we actually have no clue what it’s capacity for suffering is. I know that thoughts exist because I think them. Does a bee or a worm or a rat or a pigeon have thoughts? Maybe. Can we realistically even find out? We can’t ask. Does that make it ok to kill it torture or harm? Probably not.

Still less horrific than the neuron organoids

Honestly this is great

I love it, especially because Chomsky’s still alive?

The looks those kids were giving the camera crew. Holy crap

Fair, thanks for at least listening. I may have been off topic with the non-NYC angle. It just seems like nobody was even entertaining the concept that car taxes are bad for workers.

I find it shocking that you’re defending the idea that making driving more expensive is good in general from a worker perspective.

For the environment? Sure! Reducing congestion? Ok! But in almost every situation, looking at the car-centric world were in - those gains are paid for predominantly by the working class.

Yes, I’m not responding to stats about who owns cars in NYC. Maybe there is an argument and this will be carried out properly. Maybe it’s even a good idea. It just looks to me that the labor groups and socialist groups are opposing this and we should listen to them.

The people who live on NYC are the ones who will get the gains of better air and reduced traffic, but it is the commuters who will pay. And I don’t know if you’ve seen the numbers of how many working class folks drive into Manhattan daily. The last number I saw was 300,000.

Percentages don’t tell the full story. These people are the ones who will be paying the tax. For example https://socialistrevolution.org/mobilize-labor-to-fight-nycs-congestion-tolls/

Anyway I’ve put multiple, good, socialist and labor opinions on why these kinds of taxes are bad in general.

I appreciate the good information about this particular case that really makes it look not that bad, but I also am listening to socialist and labor groups who oppose this tax in NYC as a burden on workers. I don’t want to use the L word, but it seems like everyone here supports these taxes as free-market solutions and ignores the on the ground story. Liberalism. On my Hexbear.

Here I found something that has some actual numbers in it too:

https://socialistrevolution.org/mobilize-labor-to-fight-nycs-congestion-tolls/

About NYC

Here’s another good one, but about London. Similar gist.

https://socialistworker.co.uk/news/can-congestion-charges-work/

Also, there was one I posted in a different comment specifically about NYC.

Here’s a good counterpoint to the regressive idea of congestion taxes. I’ve been trying to convey this message throughout this thread, as I seem to be the only person here who sees this congestion tax as hurting the working class. Anyway, I can’t seem to get my ideas across, but this is a good summary:

https://socialistrevolution.org/mobilize-labor-to-fight-nycs-congestion-tolls/

Actually, this is a good overall view on where I’m coming from. This is about Toronto, but it’s overall the gist I’m (poorly) attempting to communicate:

https://www.socialist.ca/node/3223

Is this what Hexbear has become? What a shitshow. You seem really angry about this but I’m making like a really simple point and you are going on and on about New York, and transit as if I’m an idiot. Please read anything that’s not about NYC. Theory, would be great. Read something about organizing read something about the reality of work today. Read about health care workers and service workers. Read about factory work or PSWs.

I’m not wrong that making driving more expensive is burden that harms workers. Sure, maybe NYC is special - but get over yourself. There are other, better ways that money could be raised for supporting transit infrastructure. I recognize that NYC has better transit than anywhere you’ve been - it’s fine. It’s nice that many people walk and bike. I’m glad to hear that the toll will go to support better transit. That seems like a good thing. My point is that in general market solutions price out the poorest. Cars are needed by many to get to their jobs. Increasing the price means that it costs people who don’t have the option of taking a taxi, for example, or spending the hours on transit a day to go from borough to borough to their jobs.

Anyway.

You can hate cars all you want. I see where you might have got the idea I love cars, but in fact like a reasonable person I look at car-centric infrastructure as a bad thing.

However, like a reasonable person, I can also see how workers are tied to that infrastructure. Workers need cars to hold jobs in today’s society. Making driving more expensive makes it harder for working class people to get to their jobs.

I don’t really know how much more straightforward I can be.

Bringing in environmental considerations to this seems on the surface like it’s relevant but it’s not. Yes, everyone needs to stop driving cars. Increasing the cost of driving will mean that people who have the ability will think about other methods of transport. Many people cannot, and making cars more expensive just puts the burden on poorer people to survive.

At some point, I think it’s important to break down what talking about increasing the cost of driving as an environmental win actually means. It means that poorer people will not be able to afford to drive, and so will lose their jobs. The rich don’t give a crap about a couple of bucks extra - they don’t ride public transit for entirely different reasons.

Anyway, thanks for telling me very aggressively that I’m wrong, dumb, uninformed, and should not have an opinion. I actually think you haven’t thought through your views and considered what effect environmental policy can have on vulnerable people. And if you think that means I support cars, well I’m not sure what to tell you.

Look, I’m tired of this, as I feel like I’m just repeating myself. This is a market-based attempt at a solution. And it’s basic econ101 that supply and demand market efforts just make whatever it is unaffordable for the poorest among us.

A standard leftwing position should be against market solutions to problems, unless there’s very good evidence, and consultation, that this is what everyone wants.

Listen, maybe there are special factors at play in Manhattan that make this better, but what I see on other jurisdictions, nay, every other jurisdiction, is that it is the minimum wage support worker and service workers who are forced to rely on car infrastructure, and forced to own cars, to get to their work. And those jobs are unforgiving. In every other case, increases to the cost of driving put the burden squarely on the workers. Yes, many “progressive voices” call for gas tax, toll roads, congestion taxes, etc. in the name of “pushing” people to get on public transit or carpool etc., but what it does is make it a market choice for those who can afford it, and put those who are barely scraping by in the situation of needing to choose between unaffordable driving, losing time from public transit, or finding new work.

I will admit that Manhattan is a unique place. Maybe this doesn’t apply there. But in nearly every other circumstance, anything that makes driving more affordable puts the pressure directly on the most vulnerable workers.

Heard it here first. The majority of communists support old white men!!!

Oops, I replied before actually looking at the studies you put in there. That is good info.

I would still say that overall, opposing flat fuel taxes, tolls, and congestion taxes is a good stance, because in nearly all areas it is the workers who are tied to car ownership for their employment. We should be making it easier for workers to save time and money and have more time for organizing!

However, it appears in this case there is at least an argument in support of the tax. Although diverting existing gas and driving tolls and taxes instead of adding new ones might be better.

It is good that the money is going to fund transit.

I feel like a crazy person though being the only one to suggest that carbrained america has tied it’s workers to the expense of driving and then ratchets up the cost in the name of fighting climate change or congestion if peace of mind and that that hurts workers. It’s true.

I don’t think the people who this is going to negatively affect can afford to live in Manhattan. They live outside and commute in.

The environmental and peace push is fine but it’s really a NIMBY argument and separate from the extra cost on the workers.

Unfortunately, it is true. What doesn’t make sense from a leftwing perspective is making life less affordable for people who depend on driving to get to their work. Rich people don’t give a shit about a few extra dollars to drive. Yes they’ll whine about it, but it doesn’t affect them really. Who it does affect is the maintenance worker who has to pay more to get to their work site with their safety equipment and tools, or the technician who comes in from out of city to work on fixing stuff.