Posted on 04/23/2002 6:48:21 AM PDT by Phantom Lord
Traffic and Tax Cuts
By Robert H. Frank. If you think you spend too much time stuck in traffic now, watch out - more is on the way.
TRAFFIC JAMS ARE a nuisance, but they are more than that. Studies have shown that compared with people who walk or take public transportation to work, people who face protracted commutes in heavy traffic are more likely to experience high blood pressure. They have more frequent disputes with their coworkers and families. They suffer more frequent and more serious illnesses. And they are more likely to experience premature deaths.
Traffic jams are also getting much worse. A recent study by Texas A&M University, for example, reported that Americans spent three times as many hours stalled in traffic in 1999 as they did in 1982.
Although increased traffic congestion stems from many familiar causes (like population growth, cheap gasoline prices, increased urban sprawl and failure to invest in public transport), it is also the result of another factor that has received little attention -- increased inequality in income and wealth.
The basic mechanism at work is something we may call the Aspen effect. Wealthy residents have long since bid up real estate prices in Aspen and other exclusive resort communities to levels that virtually exclude middle- and low-income families. Most of the people who provide services in these communities -- teachers, policemen, firemen, laundry and restaurant workers -- must therefore commute, often at considerable distance. As a result, all roads into Aspen are clogged morning and night with commuters, many of whom come from several hours away. "Greater Aspen" now has a radius of more than 50 miles!
Traffic congestion has been getting worse in part because during the past 20 years much of the United States has become more like greater Aspen. Since 1980,the inflation-adjusted incomes of the top 1 percent of families have more than doubled, while the corresponding growth for the median family has been less than10 percent. During that same period, families in the bottom 20 percent actually saw their incomes fall in real terms.
AS A RESULT of these changes, residential patterns have become much more stratified by income. The effect has been more pronounced in some communities (the San Francisco peninsula, Austin and Seattle) than others (Chicago or Philadelphia). But the direction of change has been the same almost everywhere, and it has contributed to the rise in traffic delays.
The current policy agenda in Washington not only promises little relief for harried commuters, but is likely to make matters worse. Start with the tax cut. In the proposed $1.35 trillion reduction, 40 percent of the benefits would go to families in the top 5 percent. By making the income gap greater than it is already, this measure is likely to push low- and middle-income families even farther from their jobs, thus increasing the length of their commutes. Granted, the Aspen effect probably would not make anyone's list of the 10 most important reasons for opposing the tax cut. But it's yet another drawback to the Bush proposal.
Tax cuts would also put more pressure on already overcommitted government budgets, making it all but impossible to launch significant new urban transit programs in the next decade. And prospects for curtailing traffic congestion are further dimmed by the Bush administration's denial of any legitimate national interest in energy conservation. "The American way of life is a blessed one, and we have a bounty of resources in this country," said Ari Fleischer, the president's spokesman. "The American people's use of energy is a reflection of the strength of our economy, of the way of life that the American people have come to enjoy."
Our country does have a bounty of resources, but that doesn't eliminate the need to make intelligent decisions about how to use them. Traffic jams make life miserable for the rich, as well as for low- and middle-income families. They are neither an essential component of the good life nor inevitable. They can be greatly curtailed by smart public policy.
Robert H. Frank, an economics professor at Cornell, is the co-author of Principles of Economics. This op-ed piece, republished with the author's permission, appeared in The New York Times, May 11, 2001.
"The left basically got it wrong from the beginning," said Frank, who votes Democratic . . .
What a surprise.
NYC is no better. I have been looking at apartments in Queens and Brooklyn and find it incredible how ANYONE on a middle class salary could afford to live there. As for the poor, they get Section 8 vouchers, which I don't wualify for.
Ithaca is the City of Evil.
This is a monumental stretch in an effort to justify higher taxes. Evidently this author has no sense of absurdity.
Although increased traffic congestion stems from many familiar causes (like population growth, cheap gasoline prices, increased urban sprawl and failure to invest in public transport), it is also the result of another factor that has received little attention -- increased inequality in income and wealth.
Ver 2.0
Although decreased traffic congestion stems from many familiar causes (like population control, high gasoline prices, decreased urban sprawl and investment in public transport), it is also the result of another factor that has received little attention -- increased equality in income and wealth.
I nominate this editorial for an Orwell Award for creative contradictory use of the English language.
This income disparity would be alarming until you consider one fact: some people that are in the top 1% or the bottom 20% today weren't there 20 years ago! For instance, Bill Gates in 1982 was not in the top 1%. Microsoft wasn't public yet, and no one outside of the polyester pants crowd at amateur radio festivals and computer shows knew the name Microsoft. In 1982, Bill Gates was middle class. Now he's in the top 1%. Actually, he's the top 1. Many other people have entered the top 1% since 1982 from other strata, some perhaps even from the bottom 20%. Where was Oprah in 1982? Other people that were in the top 1% in 1982 are no longer there. Some of these may be in the bottom 20%. So this whole wealth stratification argument is a straw man argument when you realize that people can move between the classes by making good or bad decisions.
It isn't just teachers, police officers, and restaurant workers that have to commute 50 miles to work in Aspen. The exorbitant real estate prices in that area have also made it impossible for well-paid professionals like doctors and lawyers to llive there, too.
Instead of trying to reduce the cost of real estate in Aspen, people who are affected by the high cost should negotiate better compensation packages. Someone in Aspen who lives in a $10 million home and wants to enjoy police protection and send their kids to a public school is capable of paying high salaries to the police and teachers, but it will never get to that point until teachers and police officers refuse to work there for "average" pay.
I once worked in a town where the local custom was to turn half the house into rental property when the children grew up and moved out. The going rate for a one bedroom apartment there was about $300.00/month,and that $300.00 often included the utilities. Granted,the places weren't fancy,but they were certainly respectable,and the price was right.
That explains why the reports of the top 1 percent paying 34% of the taxes collected (they have it to take) and the bottom pays nothing (they don't have any to take).
Wrong. The top 1% are not likely democRAT voters while the bottom are. So the RATS take from the top 1% to pay for the votes of the bottom.
Currently the bottom 50% are paying 4% of the income taxes, and that % continues to drop. Soon the bottom 50% will be paying NO income taxes and you can kiss further tax cuts goodbye. Why would someone who isnt paying any income taxes vote for a candidate that is campaigning on cutting taxes?
Don't you get it? Frank wants us all to use the boxcar for public transportation. Now where did I see that before?
The solution to traffic jams is to privatize roads.
I love the "stratified by income" bit, by the way. These evil rich want to have each other as neighbors, and not poor Mexican immigrants. That's discrimination! But inasmuch as social mobility is low it is the consequence of the very tax policies (among other things) that he advocates.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.