• Trump Rapes Kids@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 days ago

    “I gave up driving ages ago, I don’t even own a car. Can I get in on this money as well?”

    “No, fuck you. You don’t matter. We’re only paying real people with nice cars to change, not for poor slobs who already rely on public transportation to keep using it.”

      • Trump Rapes Kids@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        The point was that it’s paying people who have options other than using public transportation, which would also correlate to them having more money than those who already have no other option.

        An extreme comparison would be that it’s sort of like paying billionaires to try to pollute a bit less.

        • TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          I understand the point but you don’t design public policy for vibes, you design it for results. You can use incentives and disincentives, and you have to choose which one works best with the population you have to get the results you want.

          Giving some incentive to the pop that already does the action you are optimizing for is pointless and a waste of money, maybe the discussion should be if instead of giving money to motorists they should have instead increased tolls, parking price, fees to enter the city, etc.

          • Trump Rapes Kids@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            That final idea of yours is the ticket, though the specifics would take work. But paying people with cars to slum it with the bums on public transportation is horrible optics and messaging. I understand trying to lighten road congestion and pollution, but there’s got to be a better way.