I was going to say... for a city with a population almost that of the entire state of California, this is hardly anything. To put that in perspective, California spends 200-300 billion each year.
Many people seem to struggle with the difference between absolute and proportional values.
Something similar in my country (Nigeria). Many people keep pointing out that Lagos, our most crowded and number one commercial city, has an annual budget of roughly $1 billion, meaning there should be world-class infrastructure.
Until I point out that $1 billion is roughly $50 annually per person. Even accounting for labor and cost of living differences, you need at least 20x that before you start expecting world-class infrastructure.
Sure, labor is cheaper, but power plants, buses, and trains are mostly imported and cost a damn lot. No way you’re getting first-world infrastructure with third-world budget and taxes.
Possibly, but things like roads and waterways are much fewer/smaller/shorter, as Mumbai is geographically an extremely small city for its population. It becomes even more obvious statistically once you remove the national park in the north from land area calculations.
In any case, there are lots of factors, but I think most Mumbaikars would agree that the city could be run much better with similar/the same resources.
How do you figured that? Average salary in california is around 10 times that of mumbai and population of greater mumbai is slightly more than half california. That adjusts the comparison to roughly 140 billion mumvai vs 200 billion california. So mumbai is marginally more efficient than one of the worst run us states by roughetrics. I suspect it should be considered worse because corruption at 8k a year average income cuts a lot worse than equivalent percentage corruption at 80k income
PPP doesn't really translate to municipal budgets, and it's also painfully clear from the grandparent that the huge budget doesn't translate to much, even after PPP comparisons.
