The point was that it’s paying people who have options other than using public transportation, which would also correlate to them having more money than those who already have no other option.
An extreme comparison would be that it’s sort of like paying billionaires to try to pollute a bit less.
I understand the point but you don’t design public policy for vibes, you design it for results. You can use incentives and disincentives, and you have to choose which one works best with the population you have to get the results you want.
Giving some incentive to the pop that already does the action you are optimizing for is pointless and a waste of money, maybe the discussion should be if instead of giving money to motorists they should have instead increased tolls, parking price, fees to enter the city, etc.
I mean, to be honest, you obviously don’t need incentive. What would be the point of paying you.
I think universal programs tend to have more public support.
The point was that it’s paying people who have options other than using public transportation, which would also correlate to them having more money than those who already have no other option.
An extreme comparison would be that it’s sort of like paying billionaires to try to pollute a bit less.
I understand the point but you don’t design public policy for vibes, you design it for results. You can use incentives and disincentives, and you have to choose which one works best with the population you have to get the results you want.
Giving some incentive to the pop that already does the action you are optimizing for is pointless and a waste of money, maybe the discussion should be if instead of giving money to motorists they should have instead increased tolls, parking price, fees to enter the city, etc.