The Venn diagram that started this thread is specifically about non rural communities. Since our global population (& society) would need to drastically contract in order for it to only be rural.
Population density. Low density means like sprawling suburbs instead of cities where homes are closer together. Which means more miles of roads, sewers, etc, and fewer people to split the costs of maintaining them.
I think this graphic ignores the reality that relatively low density areas that attract sufficient office and industrial facilities are able to keep residential property taxes relatively low while still maintaining services.
That's partly because they have a higher proportion of state and county roads - they're offloading costs upward but the actual public cost is still high
I think there is no question that all else being equal density allows for more efficient infrastructure - my point is that it is bad to exaggerate how determinative it is of the financial health of a local gov.
Where does the graphic say this is only about local gov? Those taxes necessary in order to subsidize those state & federal roads are still taxes even if they aren't municipal.
Or the reality that a large majority of taxation is not local and is spent on things that do not depend on scale. Evidently, even in the US where schools are devolved to the local level, cities have higher taxes, which leak to greater tolerance of suing the city into subsidizing private schools.
In the US, I think any locality that can attract a reasonable level of office or industrial activity is able to tax that enough to have an acceptable balance between resident taxes and services. Conversely, the opposite will break that balance anywhere.
I do think the higher taxation of cities vs. suburbs in the US has more to do with more liberal voters being willing to tax themselves more vs. anything else. Denver's taxation would be little more than elsewhere in Colorado but for a high number of dedicated sales taxes, all ballot approved.
Not really. The federal government relaxing enforcement of FDR-era laws regulating grocers' ability to push down prices with volume destroyed countless local supermarkets and essentially gave birth to food deserts as a concept.
And then, once they've used market power to push out competition, they can raise prices, suppress wages, and lower quality of service. Lower or stable prices through competition is the goal not predatory pricing which is, famously, illegal in America https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson%E2%80%93Patman_Act
The traditional local supermarkets are charging several times what the discounters charge, is the problem. If they don't know how to be as efficient as Aldi, it's fine, they can go bankrupt and go work for someone else while the workers and consumers reap the benefits of efficiency.
You're conflating cheap labour with cheap consumer prices, and, while there's obviously some relationship, it's not impossible to have the latter without the former.
I don’t think they’re saying that hyper markets are better in Europe because they offer more processed food with a higher ratio of capital to labor per unit allowing automated economy of scale
They really don't. You have an American or even Californian model of farm labor that is very much not how Europe works, and we have cheap groceries with hypermarkets and discount chains tyvm.
Doesn't Europe rely on African labor for cheap goods? I was surprised by the scale of African flower farming for European markets. My Euro husband was appalled by the conditions
Cheap groceries are good… and so are good quality groceries—I like shopping at ALDI, yet I won’t find the really good stuff anywhere but in (and from) a small business. Both types of shopping have a role to play, and if one is absent/decaying the other one goes unchecked.
yeah let's destroy our surrounding environment, push billions of tons of pollution into our air, and create roadway carnage in the dozens of thousands on top of destroying entire neighborhoods (mostly black and immigrant) so we can save 30¢ on groceries. so much better /s
To the contrary - small retail is more auto-oriented, because it's too diffuse to run a bus. Big box retail and shopping malls are good anchors for suburban public transit, if done right (it isn't in the US, but it's not because there are big box stores).
not true in the slightest. the massive parking lots are the smoking gun proof. a diverse collection of small business tied to a walkable/bikeable area is superior to any sprawled out Walmart or Costco (who both take federal subsidies) with swathes of subsidized parking next to a subsidized highway.
Wouldn't big-box retail shoppers overwhelming prefer to drive there because they need the carrying capacity of a car, even if the shop is transit-accessible?
Routes and stops with a Walmart also generate a ton of transit ridership, even if the location and site layout isn’t super convenient for transit riders.
Yeah, and this is especially good if it colocates. I know Howard Dean said in 2003 that he'd made Walmart build stores in malls rather than outside them, since at the time Walmart was Public Enemy #1 to the liberal base; I have no idea whether Vermont's considered a success in that regard, though.
Church Street Marketplace aside, most retail in Vermont is indistinguishable from the suburban sprawl found in every other state. Perhaps there's a bit more of the stand-alone roadside retail, less consolidated into strip centers a la Cali.
Pretty much, everyone wants a house with a yard, right near a bunch of restaurants and cultural attractions, 10 minutes from their office downtown and then comes back shocked Pikachu when they find out that costs $1.5 million.
If the funding source is federal/national this doesn't require that taxes are higher
This is the same neoclassical economics approach that brought us the 'need' for austerity
A national government that issues its own currency can psend without raising taxes, as long as this is not inflationary
There are instances where direct investment by the federal government can reduce inflation. A couple of examples are where federal spending creates new production capacity, allowing better competition. Another is where govt spending reduces bureaucracy as would happen (ironically) with M4A in the US
Another myth from the neoliberal hymnbook!
The answer is, it all depends,m burt thne neoliberals scratch out the 'uncertainty' and make it an article of faith
I can find rfeferences and citations if you need but it's late right now :)
The same sort of argument is used for inflation 'management' by the RBA
If inflation is too high, you need more unemployment to drag it down
IMHO this is based on work by an NZ economist called Philips (the Philips curve) but just takes a simplified example & ignores the rest of his work
Not causal!
This is because cities significantly subsidize the suburbs. The massively expensive infrastructure that suburbs require are a financial ball and chain on every city.
This where cities should use capitalism to the max and plan around growth projections. This why LA and other places in Cali are struggling. They did not want densities and policies that promote density until it is a reactionary policy
Japan’s city planning oddly is much more capitalist than America’s. Zoning is much less restrictive and public transit is mostly privately owned and profitable because rail companies are also real estate companies whose holdings increase in value with good transit service
The small property owners in the city who turn out to object to low-income housing projects or homeless shelters in their neighborhood are in that intersection of wanting low density & low taxes & are perfectly happy with service cuts - to everyone except them.
Comments
-Suburban
-Rural
-Urban
1) cheap
2) fast
3) quality
Pick any two.
Rural towns are much more efficient than sprawl, because they don't require as many services or generate as large infrastructure needs.
The Venn diagram that started this thread is specifically about non rural communities. Since our global population (& society) would need to drastically contract in order for it to only be rural.
If you are a small jurisdiction and your location makes you fit for a particular kind of use, imo resisting that is going to destroy value.
https://humantransit.org/2024/10/a-useful-graphic-made-clearer.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/12/walmart-prices-poverty-economy/681122/
This is the same neoclassical economics approach that brought us the 'need' for austerity
A national government that issues its own currency can psend without raising taxes, as long as this is not inflationary
The trick that neoliberals have pulled is to assume that a profit motive *alone* creates efficiency, and then used that to justify privatisation
The answer is, it all depends,m burt thne neoliberals scratch out the 'uncertainty' and make it an article of faith
I can find rfeferences and citations if you need but it's late right now :)
If inflation is too high, you need more unemployment to drag it down
IMHO this is based on work by an NZ economist called Philips (the Philips curve) but just takes a simplified example & ignores the rest of his work
Not causal!