There are many things wrong with that. Ethically, it's crap: denying people access to a pretty critical public good (and yeah, I wish car operation wasn't as critical and mass transit was a much more viable alternative and want to make that happen, but we are nowhere near there yet) due to circumstances--"unproductivity" in your words--that are overwhelmingly shown to be outside of their control is inequitable and cruel.
From a utilitarian perspective it's also super wrong: poor people generally outnumber nonpoor people (arguably an expected behavior of capitalism), and car autonomy is pretty critical if you want to increase your income; it opens up a lot more job prospects since, at least until robots rub everything, exclusively desk-work remote-capable jobs will be dwarfed in quantity by jobs that want you there in person.
Hell, even from an elitist/aristocratic perspective that's wrong: most poor workers are employed by service industries which provide services to the nonpoor, and increasing the cost of vehicle operatorship would reduce there quality (labor shortage) or increase the cost of those services.
But really, if the argument-from-ethics does not reach you, this is probably a waste of words.
> and increasing the cost of vehicle operatorship would reduce there quality (labor shortage) or increase the cost of those services.
Yes. That's the solution that would naturally occur. Then those people are not wasting the roads because somebody values their use of them enough to pay for it. I'm talking about people who have no reason to be in the expensive area except aimless driving or sightseeing or whatever. Those people will be discouraged from impeding the people who have more valuable reason to be there - like all workers.
He's only telling the whole truth even if it is ugly. Limited resources have to be allocated efficiently, otherwise they end up being wasted and everyone suffers in the end. That waste causes needless poverty.
It was more the utter contempt he had for the poor. The assertion that poor people making use of resources is a "waste" is just wrong however you look at it - factually, socially, morally, economically.
Honestly surprised to see someone unapologetically make a statement like this, let alone have someone else back it up as an "uncomfortable truth". I'm not even trying to be PC or "woke" or anything. It was just genuinely that shocking to read.
That really is the whole difference between rich and poor - how much resources you have access to. You may not like the fact that we aren't all equally wealthy but it's the reality. I want a CNC machine but I can't afford one because I'm poor. According to you, I have as much right to one as the rich person who bought one for himself. I don't agree. I think I should not get one unless I contribute enough value to society in the form of paid work that I can afford to buy it. If I was given it for free, I would not make as much use of it as someone who wanted it enough to earn then pay the cost. It would sit wasted in my basement most of the time. So it's good that other people aren't sacrificing anything for that waste.
Roads aren't some kind of natural resource that all humans have a birth right to, they're made and maintained by human labor just as CNC machines are.
