Is Traffic Congestion Growing Three Times As Fast As Economy? 187
cartechboy writes "Math watch time: For many traffic analysts, INRIX is considered the gold-standard. This week the company says traffic congestion surged in 2013 and grew over three times as fast as the American economy. The bad news: If true, this reverses two consecutive years of traffic declines with a six percent increase in 2013. (GDP, by comparison, grew 1.9 percent last year.) The analysts then theorize links between economic growth and traffic congestion, which makes sense on the surface. (As the economy improves, more jobs are created, so more commuters on the roads) But INRIX's theory creates as many questions as it answers. For example, the U.S. GDP has been steadily growing since 2009. So why did congestion decline in 2011 and 2012?"
Answer (Score:5, Insightful)
So why did congestion decline in 2011 and 2012?
The false equivalence between GDP and labor (and therefore commuting.)
We're shedding workers. The labor participation rate is declining. GDP, like inflation, the unemployment rate, cost-of-living, etc. are political fictions derived from politically derived formulae.
Three Strikes. (Score:2)
The band, man, Traffic the band.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, GDP, unemployment and pretty much every other measurement the government puts out is made up from whole cloth and has very little to do with reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Add to that increases in telecommuting.
I have not added to the congestion in 5 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, I'd say that the decline in congestion during 2011 and 2012 might be largely due to the fact t
How is unemployment a "political fiction"? (Score:3)
Of all the economic statistics, the unemployment rate is the easiest to understand. The Bureau of Labor Statistics calls or visit a randomly selected sample of Americans, ask them if they are employed, and if they are not, are they looking for a job. While they ask some other questions, those are the basic ones used to determine the widely-publicized unemployment rate. This is not a complicated statistical formula here, subject to all sorts of evil manipulation.
Now, you could argue that the labor partici
Traffic? (Score:3, Insightful)
Like the movie? Or Internet traffic? Or vehicular traffic?
Thanks for the context in the summary, douchemonger.
Re: (Score:3)
Cars.
"Congestion" as a descriptor doesn't apply to either of the others. Hope that helps.
As to the inane question it asks at the end:
So why did congestion decline in 2011 and 2012?
Because the DOW doesn't determine if people are driving to work, unemployment does. One follows the other. The economy isn't a unified thing, and the rich can be making loads of money while the rest of don't.
Re:Traffic? (Score:5, Interesting)
So why did congestion decline in 2011 and 2012?
Because the DOW doesn't determine if people are driving to work, unemployment does. One follows the other. The economy isn't a unified thing, and the rich can be making loads of money while the rest of don't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J... [wikipedia.org]
Interestingly, the last time we had a "jobless recovery" of significant size was around 1935, during the Great Depression... which was caused by a bunch of bankers... including Goldman... Sachs...
Hey, am I the only one seeing a pattern here?
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, if there were a pattern then the next thing would be some fascist from Europe annexing his neighboring countries.
Re: (Score:3)
Around here at least, ISPs often refer to 'network congestion' caused by router outages, DoS, and other things, on their network status pages etc. So it can be used to refer to data networks...
Re: (Score:3)
Work from home (Score:3, Insightful)
companies are starting to get smart and letting their employees work from home.
Re:Work from home (Score:5, Funny)
companies are starting to get smart and letting their employees work from home.
Yes. Why should I hire someone to commute from across town, when I can reduce congestion and hire someone to work from their home in Bangalore.
Re:Work from home (Score:5, Interesting)
companies are starting to get smart and letting their employees work from home.
Yes. Why should I hire someone to commute from across town, when I can reduce congestion and hire someone to work from their home in Bangalore.
It's true -- if it's easy to do your job from home because you don't need regular interaction with your coworkers, it's probably also easy to offshore it.
Re: (Score:2)
Only sometimes. If you want employees to be available for teleconferencing, or prefer for them to be under the same legal system the offshore outsourcing doesn't work out at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Only sometimes. If you want employees to be available for teleconferencing, or prefer for them to be under the same legal system the offshore outsourcing doesn't work out at all.
Depends how often you want them to be available for teleconferencing.
When I last worked with an offshoring company, the company had a USA based project manager that worked our normal business hours. We had an Indian based project manager/development manager that got to the office at noon our time (which I believe was midnight his time), and the developers were online by 4pm our time (4am their time) so we had a couple hours of overlap.
The project managers were USA educated and spoke fluent english
Re: (Score:2)
You can have regular interaction via the phone, video link, email etc. You can also visit clients or the office any time. You need to be in the same time-zone though.
Re: (Score:2)
companies are starting to get smart and letting their employees work from home.
Yes. Why should I hire someone to commute from across town, when I can reduce congestion and hire someone to work from their home in Bangalore.
It's true -- if it's easy to do your job from home because you don't need regular interaction with your coworkers, it's probably also easy to offshore it.
Not always true. I could easily spend 30-40% of my time working from home, but the other 60% of the time is far more productive in the office than at home. So having local employees that spend 1 or 2 days a week working from home may be far more productive than a whole team in Bangalore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But that doesn't mean it necessarily will be offshored. The company I work for is headquartered in Atlanta, but has a small satellite office in Scotland (because the CEO grew up there and wants to provide jobs in his hometown). I'm on the same scrum team as one of the guys over there and therefore work closely with him without any problems (all our meetings are during morning our time, afternoon his time).
Ironically, I'm not allowed to telecommute except in exceptional circumstances...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And here I've been reading all about companies stripping away their telecommuting options...
Isn't government spending part of GDP? (Score:3)
If all that money didn't increase total employment, then GDP could go up while the same number of people stayed home out of work.
The increase in congestion is actually a good sign. It suggests that the employment situation might finally be improving.
Re:Isn't government spending part of GDP? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Isn't government spending part of GDP? (Score:5, Funny)
Or Google's buses are really snarling traffic
Re:Isn't government spending part of GDP? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or it could mean that local governments with a reduced tax base are now not taking care of roads. Or that they've cut back on public transportation and now people have to drive to work. Or that the people that have given up are now going to the beach instead. Or that people have given up on ever finding a new job, can't bear to think of the future and are jumping into traffic. Ot that the job situation is now is desperate that bosses can demand their employees not telecommute.
Re: (Score:3)
Or maybe just regression to the mean. Maybe it's is as good as it's going to get for car people.
Re: (Score:2)
Or instead of going home, they are going to their (Score:2)
third job that day, using a car they cannot afford to repair, spewing the most blinding clouds of pollution you can imagine.
Re: (Score:2)
Less
Re: (Score:2)
If your going to blame a class of vehicles for slowing things down, blame the underpowered ones.
Acceleration is controlled by the driver, constrained by power and traction.
Re: (Score:2)
No no, it is the Ventura Freeway effect. As you double the number of cars, average speed drops by the square.
Re: (Score:2)
If the slow motorists all drove in the same lane--the one next to the entry/exit lane--they would have a negligible effect on traffic speeds. In Europe, they enforce this by making it illegal to cruise in the left lane or pass on the right. (This is also what makes the Autobahn safe, despite the lack of speed limits.) The USA only has unenforceable laws like "if you're obstructing traffic, move to the right," but if traffic can pass on the right, you are arguably not obstructing anyone.
So let's place the bl
Re: (Score:2)
No. Trucks have better power to weight ratios then most cars.
The problem is the drivers of mall utility vehicles. But they were just as big a problem 20 years ago when they drove Volvos.
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect, though the numbers are close, see Table IV.C.1-6 a [federalregister.gov], the weighted industry average puts cars .001 HP/lb ahead of light trucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that at rated load or empty?
Ether way. It's people who think the accelerator pedal is ornamental that cause the delay. Even worse is the idiots in hybrids who watch their fucking MPG gauge as they drive down the road.
layoffs, man (Score:3)
layoffs in good jobs where you had to go in during rush hours. night managers at the Burger Doodle, not so much.
Consumer confidence? (Score:2)
Having a job is one thing. Having a job and thinking it'll be there for a year or two is another. Everyone was financially "turtling up" so it's not a real surprise that indicators like traffic will lag behind. I was talking to a trade school instructor who said that businesses are STILL cutting back on good will perks like donations of equipment and time to students. Even the silly little fun trinkets they used to hand out at intramural competitions are gone.
GDP and employment (Score:5, Insightful)
The article keeps trying to compare GDP with employment. GDP has been increasing but yet unemployment is stuck at about 7%.
Why is that?
Because the "recovery" is not happening to the average guy. We are seeing a gutting of the middle class, more folks are getting (sometimes multiple) lesser jobs, and yet, companies profits are at record levels.
And in the meantime, the uultra-rich are getting ever more richer and scolding us peons that "we could be in India!" so shut the fuck up!
Income and capital gains taxes at 1950s level is what we need.
Re: (Score:2)
Just FYI, 1955 tax rates (with the indices adjusted for inflation) mean most everyone will be paying higher taxes, not just "the rich".
Note that, by "most everyone", what I really mean is "everyone". The poor will be paying around twice as much as now, everyone else in the vicinity of 1.5x as much, up until you get to the "filthy rich", who will pay more (around twice as much).
Re: (Score:2)
Would love to see the math behind this. Do you have a source?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It is like gross vrs net.
No matter what the gross tax rate is, people avoid paying taxes in more aggressive ways until it hits about 8% of GDP.
Re: (Score:2)
My marginal tax rate is around 40%.
He's speaking just of federal income tax rates (which is only one of several income taxes). But if you include the other income-based taxes (such as the ones on Social Security and Medicare) it would be a somewhat smaller fraction increase.
Re: (Score:2)
The article keeps trying to compare GDP with employment. GDP has been increasing but yet unemployment is stuck at about 7%.
Unemployment peaked at 10% in October of 2009. It's now down to 6.6%, down 130bps in the last year. Still too high, but it has been declining steadily. This chart doesn't meet my definition of "stuck."
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries... [bls.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Double taxes on gasoline, triple taxes on coal. Everyone making up to 40000 dollars/year gets a 100% exemption from payroll and federal income taxes (to offset the higher taxes on dirty fossil fuels).
This would fix climate change, replace the minimum wage increase, offer a serious incentive for heavy telecommuting and make alternate fuel vehicles really get going.
There you have, either you telecommute, live close to work, or move to an alternate fuel vehicle (electric, natural gas or ethanol).
Only the USA o
Re: (Score:2)
Suposedly, judges are wise beyond normal intelligence levels and must be able to interpret the spirit of the law living throughout a law's text.
As long as the tax loopholes of the 50s are there. Else, you're just creating yet another job-destroying dynamic. But we could get the same effect of that 50s tax rate by merely doing nothing. Actual taxes paid haven't changed that much - the silly higher rates went down and the loopholes got closed.
What has changed since the 50s is that the developed world worker is not the only game in town. There are billions of people willing to do a developed world worker's job for much less. So there are other adva
Re:GDP and employment (Score:5, Insightful)
He said return the rates to the 1950's. I don't know what the middle class rate would have been back then but I don't think it was all that dissimilar from the rates today. The top tax rate, however, was massively higher, like between 80 and 90 percent for income over (I think) $150,000. I assume this is what the GP was posting about.
Of course the "job creators" (praise be upon them) will say that this will destroy jobs since we are taking money away from them that they could be investing instead. This is true to some degree, however there is another competing effect that they seldom mention. If your marginal tax rate is 90% on income you have very little incentive to take your pay as income. Instead you are far more likely to either leave that money in the business you own allowing the business to grow, or you are likely to take your "pay" as stock in the company, giving you a strong incentive to see the company viable in the long term.
Of course the rich never tell you about this second effect because it goes against the argument of letting them take home millions of dollars in direct pay. I don't really know which of these two effects are stronger, but looking at only one whilst ignoring the other is a pretty lopsided argument. If they are so concerned about encouraging investment from the wealthy they should be advocating for an increase in the top income tax bracket and a decrease of the capital gains tax. They spend plenty of time arguing for lower capital gains but somehow forget the higher income tax, funny how that works.
-AndrewBuck
Re: (Score:2)
He said return the rates to the 1950's. I don't know what the middle class rate would have been back then but I don't think it was all that dissimilar from the rates today. The top tax rate, however, was massively higher, like between 80 and 90 percent for income over (I think) $150,000. I assume this is what the GP was posting about.
Of course the "job creators" (praise be upon them) will say that this will destroy jobs since we are taking money away from them that they could be investing instead. This is true to some degree, however there is another competing effect that they seldom mention. If your marginal tax rate is 90% on income you have very little incentive to take your pay as income. Instead you are far more likely to either leave that money in the business you own allowing the business to grow, or you are likely to take your "pay" as stock in the company, giving you a strong incentive to see the company viable in the long term.
Of course the rich never tell you about this second effect because it goes against the argument of letting them take home millions of dollars in direct pay. I don't really know which of these two effects are stronger, but looking at only one whilst ignoring the other is a pretty lopsided argument. If they are so concerned about encouraging investment from the wealthy they should be advocating for an increase in the top income tax bracket and a decrease of the capital gains tax. They spend plenty of time arguing for lower capital gains but somehow forget the higher income tax, funny how that works.
-AndrewBuck
It's a lot easier for executives and ultra-rich people to leave your country, too. With internet communications and a Gulfstream 7, I could live in a tax haven in the Caribbean and fly back to the US any time I want. That's probably much more attractive to a billionaire than paying even a 50% tax on his money.
Re: (Score:2)
They better be careful not to let the door hit them in the ass on the way out. They want to live in some backwater island nation with no standing army to defend their billions of dollars... then let them. Just like with the double taxation I mentioned above they never seem to choose that option. They bitch and moan about how high our taxes are and then keep right on living in this country. The very same country that they say I am a traitor, and un-amaerican, if I say anything bad about and yet they like
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is you have no clue about how US taxation works. Here is a hint, if you are a US citizen and live abroad only the first $90k of your income is tax-exempt, and then only if you spend more than 330 days outside the country in any given 365 day period. So yeah, at least in terms of income that simply doesn't work.
I understand how the US tax system works. However, you can become a citizen of another country and not have to pay US income tax. Do you really think that its hard to get a visa to visit the US when you can afford a G7?
90% tax on upper income doesn't matter if... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is true to some degree. Obviously if they are mis-spending the money on themselves through corruption, etc, then we should do what we can to put an end to that. Having higher tax rates doesn't necessarily mean we have to just keep giving the money to the same people getting it now. Remember this is our country and "we the people" decide how it is spent.
That said, however, the reason there is so much money around DC is not because they are all sucking up tax dollars, it is almost 100% lobbying money
Re: (Score:3)
You have a point and I am not really arguing that capital gains should be lower, it is already at 15%, significantly lower than even our already low 39% top income tax bracket. My point was simply that if they are going to argue that capital gains should be lower to encourage investment (which they do) then increasing the top income tax bracket should also be a part of that argument, which it is not. The reality is their policy is not based on any sound argument, their policy is simply lower their taxes a
Re:GDP and employment (Score:5, Interesting)
No it says you don't understand the tax code. I see you learned the phrase "double taxation" from econ 101 which is where I first heard about it but you seemed to have missed that they willingly pay that double taxation for the priveledge of limited liability. They have the option to avoid the double taxation, but they never seem to take it. Apparently that option is more than worth the double taxation since the free market chooses it over and over again.
The company makes a lot of money and pays the corporate tax rate on those profits, you have this correct. These taxes that they pay however are on their _profits_. Profits are money you earn _after_ you pay your employees, specifically the employee called the CEO who takes a salary of millions of dollars per year. This is the whole point of my argument, if the top income tax was 90% they would not pay the CEO millions, but instead would either reinvest that money back into the company (and not pay tax because business investment is tax deductable) or they would pay it out to the shareholders as dividends (who would then pay the 15% capital gains tax on it). This second option (paying dividends) is what they are supposed to be doing with that money instead of giving it to the CEO, the shareholders own the company, so why shouldn't they get that money. If the CEO really is such a brilliant leader of the company, he would be more than happy to take his pay as stock and let the increased dividends be his pay.
Once again another pro-corporate, pro 1% anaonymous coward trying to muddy the waters. Go back and tell your pay masters we aren't buying your bullshit anymore and they will have to feed you some new proapaganda to try out on the masses.
-AndrewBuck
Perhaps an additional cause is to blame? (Score:2)
What about all the road construction that is going on? That can be a big cause of congestion.
driving farther to get to work (Score:5, Insightful)
as the economy has come back, people have been forced to take jobs further from their homes - wherever they can get one.
with the housing market a mess, they also couldn't easily move closer to work.
when they can sell their houses, and move closer, or there are more jobs closer, we will see an adjustment.
personally, i want to see traffic hell. enough that we bring back light rail as a priority.
its stupid that we do not have lines running down the center of most highways in the country.
Re: (Score:2)
Sheesh. The amount of lack-of-self-awareness in these types of posts never ceases to amaze me. People don't live in the suburbs because they want to drive an hour every day, they live there because the schools in the city are hellholes that can't even graduate kids who can read.
Entirely predicable and sad that this point of view has a hatred problem and greatly desires to see others suffer. Just...sad.
Re: (Score:2)
Schools in (some) downtowns are bad because the poor and minorities are zoned out of the suburbs [leagle.com] through zoning laws that raise the cost of suburban housing [streetsblog.org]. Besides raising the cost of housing, laws such as minimum parking requirements and prohibitions against accessory dwelling units reduce property rights and restrict economic mobility, all in the name of keeping the riffraff (i.e. the poor and minorities) out.
Another factor that makes schools in poor areas perform poorly is the fact that often freeways
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not because they are non-white racial groups, but that poverty and other social problems are so over-represented in those groups. This seems to have two effects, low parental participation (engagement in-school and engagement in homework, reading, and other similar learning reinforcement) as well kids who bring their at-home social problems with them to school.
This leaves teachers and schools struggling with a whole bunch of social welfare problems schools are ill-equipped and funded to handle as well
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
With the low priority that most states place on road maintenance, the last thing we need is a poorly-maintained lightrail system right in the middle of that.
GDP growth != more jobs created (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The great recession of 2009 became the justification of many companies to lay off workers
Hiring isn't driven by revenue and profits, although the lack of them will certainly put a damper on things. Hiring is mainly driven by demand for goods and services, unless the business in question has undergone a revolution in automation.
Transit is full? (Score:3)
But INRIX's theory creates as many questions as it answers. For example, the U.S. GDP has been steadily growing since 2009. So why did congestion decline in 2011 and 2012?"
I know in my area, transit has become decidedly less desirable in the past year or so as it's become more crowded. A few years ago I could almost always get a seat and commute in relative comfort. Now the trains are so full that some days it skips my stop (or even if it stops to let someone off, there's not enough room to squeeze on). Biking is an option for me, so I've been biking regularly, but if that wasn't an option, I'd probably drive rather than take an unreliable train that's uncomfortably full. Equipment purchases are large capital expenses that can take years or evena decade to plan, fund, and complete, so public transit lags demand.
One data point does not a proof make (Score:3)
According to INRIX, traffic in the U.S. reversed two consecutive years of declines with a six percent increase in 2013. The country's GDP, by comparison, grew 1.9 percent last year. INRIX suggests that continued economic growth will result in more traffic congestion, longer commutes, and more productivity losses.
INRIX is getting their conclusion from one data point: last year. Even though previous years do not support their conclusion, multiple data points. As a result, their conclusion that traffic increases at 3 times GDP growth is not convincing. They need to put a lot more effort into this study. Even the article author pointed that out,
Bottom line: roadways are complex ecosystems, and congestion results from jobs, commuters, road work, mass transit, and countless other factors. While it's encouraging to see traffic jams as symbolic of economic growth, that's not an accurate or complete picture.
In a complex environment like this, data needs a control point and a link from cause to effect. All I see here is a very loose correlation in one year of data. Hence, this is FUD.
Other Factors (Score:2)
They all came to South Florida (Score:2)
Traffic in South Floriduh seems to be much worse than it was 2 or 3 years ago. Seems to be more people and more cars.
Wealth Pooling (Score:3)
If you put a bunch of rich-ass people together in one highly-concentrated place, even if all of them are working from home or taking Google busses to work, they're going to need services. Grocery stores, plumbers, babysitters, teachers, restaurant workers, you name it. Many of those sorts of jobs are not ones which are compatible with telecommuting--if my garbage man starts working from home, I'm going to be pissed!--and most of them are not of an income level which would allow a comfortable residence within the city where the job is. If you're making $30,000 a year as a teacher, spending $2,000 a month on a 400 sq ft studio apartment so you can walk or bike to work doesn't leave much left over for food and the like.
So inevitably, thousands upon thousands of workers need to commute various distances to keep their jobs and live in some level of comfort.
I realize that SF, as a peninsula, is a fairly unique scenario: it provides a high-value destination with severely constrained access points. Maybe not the actual logical conclusion of all similar circumstances, but a useful indicator of how things might play out in areas where money is aggregated into smaller and smaller groups who then take over relatively small and very desirable locations.
Re: (Score:2)
SF has been the realm of trust fund kids and single gay professionals for decades.
It's not like the middle class lived there prior to Google buses. The ones complaining are mad because their trust funds won't cover rent in SF proper anymore.
Because ... (Score:2)
House and States defunded transit (Score:5, Insightful)
See, people are too stupid to realize a bus with 60 people that gets defunded means there are now 60 more cars crammed onto the same failed underfunded highway infrastructure.
A 5 percent reduction in transit funding results in a 30 percent increase in traffic congestion and a 25-50 percent increase in commute times.
Penny-wise.
Pound-foolish.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
See, people are too stupid to realize a bus with 60 people that gets defunded means there are now 60 more cars crammed onto the same failed underfunded highway infrastructure.
A 5 percent reduction in transit funding results in a 30 percent increase in traffic congestion and a 25-50 percent increase in commute times.
Penny-wise.
Pound-foolish.
That probably depends on where you're from. In my neck of the woods only the uber poor take mass transit. Those 60 people end up loosing their jobs rather than driving a car to work. That mostly has to do with the fact that the area has one of the worst transit systems I have seen in my life. They use a spoke configuration and everyone must go into downtown to get to their destination (unless they happen to be traveling to a destination that is on their line between their home and downtown).
Re: (Score:3)
In most cities, the people that actually own and drive cars dont use the city bus system. Large cities like Chicago and NYC are the exception because they have a real public transit system and the cost of owning a car in those cities is so astronomical ($350-$550 a month for a parking spot).
Other towns that are under 1,000,000 in population are so poorly designed and have nonexistant real public transportation to begin with, you really only have lower class people on the bus lines. In those cities there
Where is Chris Christie? (Score:4, Funny)
I think that we need Christie to do a "traffic study" to sort this out once and for all.
Because the economy isn't growing (Score:5, Insightful)
The federal government has been spending ever more money in order to prop up the GDP (remember that gov't spending is part of the GDP). In reality, the economy has been shrinking for some time except in Washington DC. And, no, we can't continue this forever or even much longer.
Idiots (Score:2)
recovery for wall street vs. recovery for main st (Score:2)
looking at the real unemployment rates (not the new system put in place in 1994), things not improving for the common man in 2010 and 11.
recession certainly cleared the highways around my area until last year, now people getting jobs
Traffic Engineering Anyone? (Score:2)
Private Cars are just about the most stupid thing (Score:3)
Private Cars is just about the most stupid thing in these times. Germans spend 4.7 Billion man hours per year in traffic jams. Mind you, this is Germany, where there are better and more roads per capita, far less speed limits and people actually know how to drive. 4.7 fucking billion man hours per year. Let that sink in for a minute. And that's like 80% of the monetary income generating population wasting that sort of time (I won't say working population, for obvious reasons).
With that time wasted, we could send every person in the workincome population on a paid 3 week vacation each year and still have money to spare.
Cars are an anomally, only around today for mostly historical reasons, with no sensible reason at all. Sort of like the PC keyboard or MS Windows. Only with far more negative impact on overall quality of living and the environment.
Most populations and societies would be better of if we banned private cars alltogether and switched to e-bikes and public transport entirely. With taxis and cargo taxis for the special occasions. Would be cheaper for all, faster for all, better for the environment and we'd all be happier for it. I'd bet money on that.
If I were a billionaire I'd pay some bankrupt German cities to ban cars alltogether and then heavyly invest in them and then sit back and watch the local economy and quality of living skyrocket.
My 2 cents.
Re: (Score:2)
What ads?
Nice and quiet around here (Ghostery, NoScript).
Refreshing.
Re: (Score:2)
I had my ad block plus allowing ads for slashdot for quite a while, too. I did this because they actually gave me a checkbox to disable ads and I thought, "well that is very nice of them, I think I will support them and actually allow ads (and disable ABP so I see them)". I see that it is set to block again now though, I did this a while back. I can't remember the exact reason, but I think it was similar to your experience. Some really annoying ad that drove me to re-enable the block.
Keep it up dice, so
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
Re:Obama (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually... remember his "Shovel Ready projects"? How much you want to bet road construction is up this year due to those stimulus programs? I know the main clover leaf near me is getting torn up this year due to stimulus so at least that bit is Obamas fault. :-)
Ok, what do I win?
Re: (Score:2)
Does work from home have a meaningful impact yet?
Re:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
We've equated job creation to economic growth. Not all jobs generate the same economic growth. The discrepancy mentioned in the article is a result of more people going to work to less productive jobs. This is a result of economic policies from republicans and democrats, but creating jobs is one of the reasons Obama was elected as president. Unfortunately that is only one side of the equation. The economy is a complicated system and any statement that overly simplifies it to create jobs and the economy will grow should be called into question.
Politician are to blame on both sides of the isle, but we elected them, so we have only ourselves to blame.
Re:Obama (Score:4, Insightful)
Agree, but I think part of the problem is that we're stuck on jobs as the means to obtain basic income.
If you have a strong economic base, then you shouldn't really need jobs. Just tax the economic activity, and distribute the money to the population (either directly, or in the form of services/subsidies/etc). Of course there will still be jobs as well, but not everybody will need one.
Paying to employ people who aren't actually necessary to the economy is just creating busywork and is wasteful. It would be more productive to just pay them to stay home, and let companies focus on whatever it is that they excel at.
The problem is that we're stuck on an economic system that is based on the need for human labor, and that need has been declining (or to the extent that it is needed, it is only able to be performed by fairly few people).
Re: (Score:3)
You would rather have some eureka moments such as penicillin coming out of useless studies such as an empirical study of why sandwiches grow mould, than a person without goals.
Staying at home bored encourages miscreant self entitled people. Have a look at the book "Generation F" and look at what's happened in England with third generation unemployed living on welfare.
Re:Obama (Score:4, Informative)
Education and research is productive busy work.
You would rather have some eureka moments such as penicillin coming out of useless studies such as an empirical study of why sandwiches grow mould, than a person without goals.
I agree, and so is stuff like maintaining basic infrastructure (doesn't take much skill to fill in potholes, and yet they're EVERYWHERE around where I live right now).
The problem with research is that many simply aren't cut out for it. Anybody can do one task on an assembly line (which is why the assembly line was invented). Most people just don't care enough about science to make real contributions in research/etc.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Blame (credit?) Fracking (Score:2)
After years of decline, US oil production began to rise again in 2009 with fracking technology and the increases since have been astounding [nytimes.com].
This oil boom has kept gasoline prices in check and has probably helped the economy from slipping back into recession.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure if you are serious or if you were making a toungue in cheek joke. What the GP was referring to was that 2012 was a presidential election year and so he is making a thinly veiled attack on the Obama administration, alledging that they changed the GDP number to make themselves look better. Never mind that yearly GDP numbers don't come out until well after the election which happens in November, and also ignore the fact that they couldn't be bothered to put their name on their bullshit accusation.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing you're talking about a leap year.
Seriously? Your arithmetic is great and all, but really; you jumped to leap year's effect on GDP? He's talking about 2012 being a Presidential election year.
Re: (Score:2)