Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just a warning: I'm a fan of public transportation, so this will probably be from the perspective of transportation policy. But, the consequences, as I see them, are far-reaching.
For roughly the first half of the last century, (or, at least until just after WWII) government didn't play a large roll in our lives. Cities were stable, public transportation systems were privately run, and there was, generally, minimal government assistance, relatively speaking.
Then, as government involvement in car-oriented transportation grew, (not to mention other things--like redlining--that are now illegal) suburbs began to flourish. Suburbia became synonymous with the "American Dream." While the private public transportation systems began to struggle, the government was building highways that made it easy to leave the city and live in the suburbs.
As people left the cities, problems like declining schools, crime, higher taxes due to a shrinking tax-base, etc. (I'm ignoring racial tensions, although that played a part too) began to emerge in cities. These problems pushed more people--those who had the financial resources--out, concentrating poverty in the cities, and making their problems worse.
So, in the 1960's, government ramped-up the aid given to the impoverished, (who were largely "stuck" in our cities) to alleviate some of these problems. Not long after, the government--local, state, and federal--also began taking over the failing public transportation systems. (which couldn't compete with government funded auto-oriented transportation systems.)
In summary: the government subsidized the rise of the automobile, which helped create suburbia as we know it. So then, we had to pay more taxes for the government to prop up our cities, and run public transportation. Without government interference, the car might not have become so dominant, suburbs might not have become so ubiquitous, cities might not have declined, we wouldn't have to fund entitlements to the extent we do today, and our public transportation systems might have remained private and world-class.
Thoughts? Can you provide other examples where government intervention has caused the need for more government intervention?
Focusing on interstate and suburban living grew the economy massively.
It gave the auto industry something to do, building cars for everyone. Then the small coffee shops, grocery stores, insurance agencies, etc that were built and employed people in suburban areas.
Public funding of transportation isn't the problem, its the lack of it that is a problem. Spreading people out creates the need for new goods and services, the need for transportation to those areas, employing millions more then would be the case if we all lived in tight little areas.
The problem in the United States is a lack of infrastructure spending, and that many of our lower wage jobs have gone over seas. Thats not necessarily the problem, the we can handle off shoring of low wage jobs, but it will create a new service industry sector, and thats new to the United States.
Just a warning: I'm a fan of public transportation, so this will probably be from the perspective of transportation policy. But, the consequences, as I see them, are far-reaching.
For roughly the first half of the last century, (or, at least until just after WWII) government didn't play a large roll in our lives. Cities were stable, public transportation systems were privately run, and there was, generally, minimal government assistance, relatively speaking.
Then, as government involvement in car-oriented transportation grew, (not to mention other things--like redlining--that are now illegal) suburbs began to flourish. Suburbia became synonymous with the "American Dream." While the private public transportation systems began to struggle, the government was building highways that made it easy to leave the city and live in the suburbs.
As people left the cities, problems like declining schools, crime, higher taxes due to a shrinking tax-base, etc. (I'm ignoring racial tensions, although that played a part too) began to emerge in cities. These problems pushed more people--those who had the financial resources--out, concentrating poverty in the cities, and making their problems worse.
So, in the 1960's, government ramped-up the aid given to the impoverished, (who were largely "stuck" in our cities) to alleviate some of these problems. Not long after, the government--local, state, and federal--also began taking over the failing public transportation systems. (which couldn't compete with government funded auto-oriented transportation systems.)
In summary: the government subsidized the rise of the automobile, which helped create suburbia as we know it. So then, we had to pay more taxes for the government to prop up our cities, and run public transportation. Without government interference, the car might not have become so dominant, suburbs might not have become so ubiquitous, cities might not have declined, we wouldn't have to fund entitlements to the extent we do today, and our public transportation systems might have remained private and world-class.
Thoughts? Can you provide other examples where government intervention has caused the need for more government intervention?
That is simple, though it goes back before WWII. The great depression caused government intervention. Things got so bad that Roosevelt and the New Deal stepped in to fix things. One of the most notable of these projects was the rural electrification project and the TVA. Before the 1930s and 1940s vast swaths of the South did not have any electricity. The New Deal changed that along with other development by organizations like the CCC and WPA and they were almost as popular as they were successful. The 1940-1960s were the natural extention of that.
Just a warning: I'm a fan of public transportation, so this will probably be from the perspective of transportation policy. But, the consequences, as I see them, are far-reaching.
For roughly the first half of the last century, (or, at least until just after WWII) government didn't play a large roll in our lives. Cities were stable, public transportation systems were privately run, and there was, generally, minimal government assistance, relatively speaking.
Then, as government involvement in car-oriented transportation grew, (not to mention other things--like redlining--that are now illegal) suburbs began to flourish. Suburbia became synonymous with the "American Dream." While the private public transportation systems began to struggle, the government was building highways that made it easy to leave the city and live in the suburbs.
As people left the cities, problems like declining schools, crime, higher taxes due to a shrinking tax-base, etc. (I'm ignoring racial tensions, although that played a part too) began to emerge in cities. These problems pushed more people--those who had the financial resources--out, concentrating poverty in the cities, and making their problems worse.
So, in the 1960's, government ramped-up the aid given to the impoverished, (who were largely "stuck" in our cities) to alleviate some of these problems. Not long after, the government--local, state, and federal--also began taking over the failing public transportation systems. (which couldn't compete with government funded auto-oriented transportation systems.)
In summary: the government subsidized the rise of the automobile, which helped create suburbia as we know it. So then, we had to pay more taxes for the government to prop up our cities, and run public transportation. Without government interference, the car might not have become so dominant, suburbs might not have become so ubiquitous, cities might not have declined, we wouldn't have to fund entitlements to the extent we do today, and our public transportation systems might have remained private and world-class.
Thoughts? Can you provide other examples where government intervention has caused the need for more government intervention?
The government did not cause people to move to the suburbs. When you wake up one day and see your city burning, rioters rampaging and hear of knife fights in the local school, you know it is time to move which is what millions of people did. It was not because of the automobile but because the city had become dangerous and the schools bad. People don't pack up and sell their homes at 3/4 of the value to get out fast for no reason. They woke up and said "hey, this ain't Mayberry anymore". As for public transportation, many people see it as a threat to them because it can bring the problems they fled from right out to the suburbs. We have a decent system here that runs 24 hours a day and serves the suburbs including Henderson and really it does not bring trouble out here but that does not stop the perception.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.