$700M in free buses means better access to jobs and services, which has tangible economic benefits and results in tax money coming back to the government.

I... Err... I mean bus bad car good!

I think free busses would have a return in investment (apart from quality of life).

A better connected city, transport wise, opens up new job opportunities or places to go for citizens, which can increase tax revenue.

More people using busses also means less cars (probably) and by extension, less pollution, which can save costs.

I'm not sure how much of a return those, and probably other stuff would give, but I think it's more than nothing.

Maybe someone knows better.

I agree with all of you and was just trying to say how it might be seen.

This right here is the problem. We allow the GOP and the Murdochs to dictate the meaning of these things and gaslight the people into believing the fiction that some billionaire industrialist stooping to grace a city with their business is worth more than thousands of regular folks just getting to work, doing their jobs, living their lives, and making our society work. It needs to be plastered everywhere that not only do we not need billionaires or even multimillionaires but that they are quintessentially harmful to our country and our society.

P.S. if you aren't prepared to deal with every Tom, Dick, and Jane replying to your comment to argue every little thing then you should give up commenting cause people are gonna argue no matter what. It's how ideas get around.

I don't think we need to have an either or mentality. We need to break out of the idea that things need a perfect, direct ROI. That just reinforces financial overlords to do layoffs and to favor capital and the rich.

$700M in free busses could open up a world of happier people, access to better jobs and better Healthcare through better access.

There is more to ROI than direct financial returns, and we have to get out of the language of the venture capitalist. You say that it is "just generally improving the quality of a society". That IS a return on investment. And it's more important in my mind than a financial gain. We need to start treating happiness like it's something worth pursuing. We say money can't buy happiness, but then base all our decision making on money like it's the key to everything.

Short sighted ROI - only businesses create ROI? Residents do not? Would decreased accidents, decreased cars on the road, increased resident satisfaction not also create ROI although not as easy to measure as a business balance sheet?

If you want to be fair, you’ve got it completely backwards. Tesla wasn’t going to be bringing in much in the way of actually paying proper taxes or treating the residents well but we have actual real-life examples of free bus experiments boosting the local economy.

It’s not even about being nice for the residents, though that is obviously a major positive, it’s just the only smart thing to do. It’s literally stupid as hell to not at least try it from a financial perspective and the only thing that stops people is because it would be a kindness.

You’re just trying to be intellectually honest here, by recognizing that in theory subsidies are supposed to bring jobs and economic benefits to a region, whereas public transit is seen as a cost center. And I think you’ve been sufficiently rebuked on that point.

Anyway, upvoted because I appreciate the attempt to engage conservative fiscal policy on its own terms. It’s easy to frame it as “rich people good, poor people bad,” but occasionally we need to debate the internal logic of it so we can properly pull back the curtain and see it for what it really is, which is in fact “rich people good, poor people bad.” You started that debate, and as a result the consensus here feels more like a good-faith rebuttal and less like a sarcastic shot from the hip (which my original post definitely was).

please stop replying to this comment with counterarguments,

"I want to be anti-transit but not get pushback."

Only replying because of the edit.

If free busses get more people to more store to spend more money, that won't provide an ROI?

You post on Lemmy, and expect to not get replied to?

Do you think this is a bubble echo chamber?

Wake up

Nah. If the DNC thinks a Cuomo or Harris or other right-winger is electable, they will ratfuck progressives.

End homelessness = buy everyone a home.

But the point was more about the fact that he could buy every single homeless person in two countries a house, and still have more than half his current wealth. In your desire to be contrarian, you miss the actual point.

Send like a cool thing to attempt.

Like even if someone still wants to sleep outside, a safe place to store your shit so it stays dry seems pretty dope. A place you can show up to when the temperature drops and your shivering and just sleep at with no strings attached....

Shelter is one of our basic needs, kind of like food and water.... Seems like our basics shouldn't be driven by profit.

You don't think giving someone a house makes them not homeless? Weird.