I did a quick search and couldn't find an answer.
I wonder if part of the disconnect is that they are using just a general "dwelling" in CPI. As opposed to price per square foot. That is, is dwelling size shrinking, while costs are growing, this could cause housing costs to be understated in CPI
The library is appealing to me because:
Precedence: pre internet I could connect to the library over a landlines and access the library and community news.
Expertise: not necessarily deep tech expertise, but with information retrieval, curation, education.
Community access: libraries are a municipal service with brick and mortar locations, and are heavily involved with community/public engagement.
For clarity, on the fediverse instance aspect. I was thinking more read only, with users being more official organizations with a barrier of entry vs. The general public. I personally wouldn't want libraries to be moderating public discourse - this should be arms reach. And wouldn't want them worrying about liability.
Public information (like safety bulletins for example) shouldn't exclusively be sitting on a for profit ad platform, it's bizarre.
Libraries should evolve to play a larger role in the internet, theyve been trying to reinvent themselves and i think this best aligns with their spiritual purpose. Some ideas:
Caretakers of digital archives.
Caretakers of relevant open source projects.
Could I get a free domain with my library card?
Could I get free api access to mapping or other localized data?
Should libraries host local fediverse instances for civic users? (think police, firefighter alert, other community related feeds)
Is a change to our voting system something the NDP can ask for to continue propping up the liberals? Or would that be too political?
I like this - as a fan of democracy.
Democracy costs, I think it's OK that it takes a bit of time, more representatives, more votes is OK.
More civic engagement is a positive. Hearing the viewpoints of your neighbour is positive.
A really interesting dynamic, is that you would be creating a strong pipeline of leaders/representatives developing bottom up.
A lot of things of value are very hard to measure.
X degree influences can be very hard to measure.
You may hit your target metric, but secondary effects may be making the whole system worse.
Ideally you could A/B a parallel universe to isolate your specifc change, but that is challenging.
For sure, happy to open up the conversation again later
Very little of the demand is demand to drive a car. It's mostly demand to travel as effectively as possible.
When you build out road networks you make traveling by car more effective, increasing demand on that specific mode.
When you build out transit networks you make traveling by transit more effective, increasing demand on that specific mode.
When you have well designed cities, you reduce the demand for travel, period.
Higher population centers have favorable economics for transit vs. Personal vehicles. And are more impacted by pollutants.
Low population centers have favorable economics for personal vehicles vs. Transit. And are less impacted by pollutants.
That's a description of the dynamics anyway.
I imagine vast majority of people would agree that folks that live in the densist cities need transit, and those living in a forest need a personal vehicle. The debate occurs somewhere in between of the extremes.
Personally I'm of the opinion that we skew too far towards cars, because the true costs/externalities are harder to see, so what seems like favorable economics is actually just socializing the costs.
Agreed we are not in a good spot and unlimited population is not sustainable. However, sex education, access to birth control, and strong women's rights is the answer in my opinion not 'enforcing' limits - which reads as an authoritarian dystopia to me. Economic growth is good as long as it's decoupled from natural resource use/impact.
Restricting reproductive rights is not ethical.
Alternatively, if there was no Google or Google like company, we would likely be much further along in tech, and have better functioning democracies. They have limited innovation in maps and search products. They rely on being big to be competitive. Their products are pretty poor given their engineering team size. Digital advertising: they bought their way into a quasi monopoly, siphoning dollars from people that actually create things.
On progressive taxes: my apologies, i wasn't very clear. Yes I'm familiar with how it works, I just meant raise the bottom tax bracket. EG: first 30k is not taxed.
On economic systems: there are negative trade offs with scale, central planning, vertical integration. Less diverse ideas, can be slower. There are still middlemen just structured differently.
I'm not against publicly owned companies though, they should tend towards infrastructure and natural monopolies (rail, telecom, probably some tech...)
I disagree that it would be easier/more efficient to break up companies than to tax them as they approach that state of need. But I'm not against the idea.