Throwing money at it would solve all sorts of problems. It'd let us pay teachers more. It'd let us provide more healthcare opportunities to people. It'd help us improve our infrastructure like roads and public transportation. It'd help our libraries. It'd make education less expensive, allowing more people access. Fewer people in economic distress means less crime. Better parks. Better maintenance of natural spaces. Etc.
Government isn't perfect. But neither is private industry. We need both. And both need money to function well.
The US already spends more than almost all other countries on education: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/020915/what-country.... Infrastructure costs are significantly higher as well: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/1/14112776/ne.... And of course our deranged health care system delivers worse results at higher costs by capturing exactly the worst aspects of both free markets and central planning. Flinging more money at these institutions is unlikely to do anything useful unless we can figure out why they're performing so poorly.
Our zoned housing capacity fits only N residents. No matter how much money you throw around, rents will simply rise until only N people can afford them. We don’t need more and more dollars chasing the same apartments. We need more apartments. Give low income workers more to spend on housing, and the only person whose life materially improves is the landlord.
In most Bay Area communities education bond measures pass with ease. Same with open space measures.
Mid Peninsula Open Space is swimming in money, they buy land faster than they can open it. Bay Area voters just recently approved major funding boosts for Mid Peninsula...why would they do so again so soon?
Seems like HN readers would do well to survey what has passed in the last ten years...
More money == things are better is just too simple of a model to make a decision like this. You add more money to the system and where does it go? It's not automatically allocated to your causes, some of it gets siphoned off in administrative overhead. Some of it gets reallocated. Some of it is just used for cronyism or lost in the bureaucracy of doing business (e.g. paying lawyer fees to fight NIMBY's who are using environmental review to prevent the development of transportation or public housing).
On a tangential note, there is nothing stopping you and a group of like-minded individuals from just paying more taxes to the government.
> You add more money to the system and where does it go?
Probably from rich person to rich person, but there's the hope tax money goes to actual services. At worst we're in the same position.
> On a tangential note, there is nothing stopping you and a group of like-minded individuals from just paying more taxes to the government.
The people inclined to act in this communal/moral way are often not suited to make significant amounts of money to give away. You need to take the money from the rich people and give it to the poor people.
> no, the worst case is that capital was misallocated,
Who is to say this isn’t happening already? I don’t see many signs it’s well allocated today. Look at healthcare costs in America. Look at our defense spending for little tangible return. Look at the homeless on the streets. Look at where VC investments are going (ads, lifestyle spending, and automation—little to no benefit to society as the productivity returns go to the capitalists). Look at the debt necessary to get what is commonly considered a base for any career, ie a degree. Symptomatically, cash is already misallocated for a society that bolsters values I hold dear.
> growth that could’ve happened, didn’t
Ahh yes, the “market before everything” philosophy. I don’t buy into it. If growth were meaningfully good we’d see wage increase adjusted for inflation in the lower class. We haven’t seen this for decades.
> On a tangential note, there is nothing stopping you and a group of like-minded individuals from just paying more taxes to the government.
If I was wealthy enough to self-fund quality healthcare for all Americans, I would. I can't. But I am pleased when hyper-wealthy people give back significant contributions to the common good.
Start a non-profit corporation. Get investors. Figure out a business model that works and make it happen.
Oh, right... that's hard work compared to just taking money away from people.
Heck I'm not even opposed to paying more in taxes, but I refuse to do so when the US already has the highest costs across the board for several sectors including education, health care and transportation. Get the house in order and then we can talk about more taxes. We can start by getting rid of public-sector unions which are a racket and then we can also loosen regulations to encourage faster development.
I’ll give you healthcare: That can likely be improved while also lowering costs.
Unfortunately most evidence indicates that lowering costs and increasing efficacy also means increasing government involvement, so that’s effectively a no-go. So. We’re a bit stuck.
Government isn't perfect. But neither is private industry. We need both. And both need money to function well.