>Of course, in the long run, using physical proximity as the sole competitive advantage is not a good social policy
I believe that in the long run, standards of living will somewhat equalize. I mean, there will be differences, but I hope those differences will be like the difference between San Francisco and Denver, not the differences between San Francisco and rural Vietnam.
[on transit]
>If this trend spreads across the nation (which would still require a concerted and extended effort), we could see a dramatic paradigm shift that allows both the upper middle class and the lower class to coexist in urban environments.
What I was trying to say is that I believe the problem isn't technical; we have the money and ability to create good transit systems. We need the will to create good transit systems. We need a reason for the politically powerful classes to want public transit in their backyards.
> I believe that in the long run, standards of living will somewhat equalize.
I think that it will depend on whether or not we reform the education system so that we don't create a permanent "servant underclass." Just as we once established an education system that effectively prepared the citizenry for manufacturing jobs, we have to now establish a system that prepares the citizenry for a knowledge economy. The last thing we want is a postmodern Downton Abbey-style society.
> We need a reason for the politically powerful classes to want public transit in their backyards.
I agree with that - the problem is not, and has never been, a technical one. But I think the social obstacles are falling away with the younger generation, because they didn't grow up in a world where urban areas were seen as blighted and crime/poverty-ridden as they were 2 or 3 decades ago.
>I think that it will depend on whether or not we reform the education system so that we don't create a permanent "servant underclass.
I find it really difficult to argue against good state-subsidized education; some people really do learn useful stuff in school.
But... I don't think good education is going to make the problem go away all by itself.
I really hope that what I am about to say is wrong.
I don't believe that education has as much to do with success as people say. Education correlates with high income, yes, but education also correlates with having high income parents. I think having the sorts of parents who encourage and help you to get an education also correlates with both getting an education and with getting a successful career.
Nearly everyone in my family has a degree of some sort, many have advanced degrees. I have no degree, and no significant time spent at college, and am the highest earner of my siblings. Hell, almost all of my siblings have worked for me at some point.
From what I've seen? My life (and my income) is more like that of my "class brothers" than of those I went to high school with who have my level of "educational attainment" - The conclusion I am drawing from this is that having parents like mine was important to my success; most people with parents like mine are going to go to college, sure, but the college itself is less important than those parents.
I believe that in the long run, standards of living will somewhat equalize. I mean, there will be differences, but I hope those differences will be like the difference between San Francisco and Denver, not the differences between San Francisco and rural Vietnam.
[on transit]
>If this trend spreads across the nation (which would still require a concerted and extended effort), we could see a dramatic paradigm shift that allows both the upper middle class and the lower class to coexist in urban environments.
What I was trying to say is that I believe the problem isn't technical; we have the money and ability to create good transit systems. We need the will to create good transit systems. We need a reason for the politically powerful classes to want public transit in their backyards.