A Rule of Thumb

One objection you often hear to pro-transit, pro-walking, anti-driving measures is a social justice argument that these measures will hit the poor hardest. In fact, as this Kevin Drum post makes clear poor people do relatively little driving. They differ from middle class and wealthy people in that utility bills take up a very large proportion of their income.

Not only should this specific point be remembered, but one should also recall as a general rule of thumb that if you see a large, powerful, well-organized lobby citing the needs of the poor as the rationale for something or other they're almost certainly full of it. In the real world, poor people have extremely little political clout and anything that's attracting a lot of political attention is almost certainly doing so because it's of concern to the non-poor.

Comments

Willie Nelson needs to have a Bike Path Aid concert.

Posted by steve duncan | June 28, 2008 12:31 PM

Having cheap transportation allows people to go where the jobs are while living in cheap and/or desirable housing. This can turn otherwise poor people into middle class.

But cheap transportation does not have to be by personal automobile - obviously public transport is more efficient and ultimately cheaper than one-person-in-an-SUV whatever the price of gasoline. So if gasoline taxes go into public transportation, rather than road building, those who depend on cheap transportation, whether "poor" or "middle class" will not necessarily be worse off in the long run.

I think the decision in the 1950's for the Federal Government to subsidize roads (interstates) rather than railroads was based on national-security grounds, and at that time the price of oil was not an issue.

Posted by skeptonomist | June 28, 2008 12:46 PM

"In the real world, poor people have extremely little political clout"

And lil Matty is doing his best to keep things that way.

That's why he likes having the Democratic Party as a subsidiary of General Electric.

Posted by Petey | June 28, 2008 12:51 PM

In fact, as this Kevin Drum post makes clear poor people do relatively little driving.

From Drum's post:
On a percentage basis, the poor pay 7x as much for utilities as the well off, while they pay only 4x as much for gasoline. (emph added)

So, 'the poor' may do little driving wrt 'the rich' - they are poor after all - but on average more of their budget goes to driving - ergo a (arbitrary figure) $1 increase in gasoline *will* hit the poor the hardest - in the absence of other policies. And what Drum is saying is those ameliorative policies have to be more complex than just an income tax rebate.

And look at that 2nd quintile - their gasoline is as much as their other utilities, and that's the working class, whose support for democrats was seriously eroded for over a decade after gasoline spikes of the 70's. Their 'political clout' was decisive in the election of reagan and gingrich (and also Clinton)

Posted by Kolohe | June 28, 2008 12:51 PM

The poor take public transportation and cabs. Any small town that has taxis invariably carries mostly the poor and inebriated.

Posted by Mudge | June 28, 2008 1:03 PM

Right wingers don't care about the poor, period. They just trot them out when convenient to use as a political bludgeon.

You see this most commonly when discussing legislation to combat climate change. My side wants health care, 'FUCK THE POOR!' they yell. My side wants a more progressive tax structure, 'FUCK THE POOR!' they yell. When my side brings up climate change or a sane/sustainable energy/transportation policy, suddenly it's 'BUT WHAT ABOUT THE POOR!'

Hey righties, you know how irritated you get inside when my side starts talking about the welfare of the troops? That's how my side feels when you all cynically pretend to give two shits about poor people. (Although I think most on my side really DO actually care about the troops.)

Posted by mike | June 28, 2008 1:08 PM

if you see a large, powerful, well-organized lobby citing the needs of the poor as the rationale for something or other they're almost certainly full of it.

Agreed. But this includes trial lawyers and many "civil rights" groups.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | June 28, 2008 1:10 PM

skeptonomist: National Defense was a fig leaf covering the desire of people to replicate the toll roads of Northeast and Midwest and the freeways of California with the Interstate highway system. If they truly had been concerned about National Defense there would have been an effort to build a multi modal system. In the 50s everyone remembered the gas rationing of World War II, they knew that driving to work was not in the interests of National Defense...

Posted by Adirondacker | June 28, 2008 1:16 PM

"...as a general rule of thumb that if you see a large, powerful, well-organized lobby citing the needs of the poor as the rationale for something or other they're almost certainly full of it..."

Perfect example: the BushCo/Wall Street cheap labor lobby pushing for amnesty for illegal immigrants

Posted by kafka | June 28, 2008 1:21 PM

Matt,

The point is correct--to an extent.

While it is certainly true that driving is not the most corrosive cost on the poor, it still hurts them.

In urban areas it is roughly true that the poor do not drive--hence the gaping spatial mismatch in peoples' ability to seek jobs where the growth has been in suburbs and exurbs. But the rural poor do rely on automobile, which should not go without saying. And as we have seen with the advent of urban "renewal" and gentrification, many of the poor and near poor now live in aging suburbs outside of the city, increasing their likelihood of needing a car.

Further, the poor may have other, more pressing costs to combat, but many people just above the poor are hard hit by gas prices and auto usage. It would be a grave mistake to use the poor as a means to obfuscate the regressive nature of gas. The difference between the poor you cite and the working poor and working class people are not that big. In America, the class lines are not quite as powerful on the lower end as they once were.

In short, using statistics on the poor to make categorical claims about them and others is a bit weak in reality.

I could not agree more that ameliorating many of these peoples' problems is through transit and other non-car transportation means, but suggesting that gas prices are not figuring large in many a poor or near-poor (the differences are petty these days) persons' calculus in such a politically driven manner excuses the nuance required. In a similar--but yet less ridiculous-fashion to the crass industry advocates that try and use the poor as well.

Posted by murderin murphy | June 28, 2008 1:44 PM

Car insurance is likely to hit lower-income people especially hard. They are more likely to live in redlined neighborhoods and have poor credit histories.

Posted by Peter | June 28, 2008 2:24 PM

See the Times Saturday about car owners who can't find a parking spot while alternate side rules are suspended in Park Slope. One yuppie complains that he (gasp) has to take mass transit. Sure puts that claim about congestion pricing hitting the poor in perspective.

Posted by John Haber | June 28, 2008 2:30 PM

murderin:

I agree that rural poor are reliant on automobiles. But any pro-transit measures are designed for urban environments, so the plight of rural poor is a canard.

The fact is, a great, efficient and effective public transit system is beyond just a financial benefit to the poor, it is a family values issue. Think of it this way ~ that story a few years ago by Michael Moore about the welfare to work programs where the participants literally spent a huge part of their day just getting to their minimum wage job.

How are these young mothers ever supposed to raise the very kids who we would hope could rise out of poverty? But with an efficient and effective public transit system, suddenly, getting around is not nearly the burden, and the poor have mobility, which begets opportunity as well as more time at home.

I agree - the rural poor are in a real bind here. I think as the price of energy rises, the hardest transition is going to be how rural poor handle this and how communities deal with it. I guess perhaps one could start to argue that living in the great wide-open maybe is going to become a luxury that the poor just cannot afford. But - on the flip side, it will result in higher wages for those who do stay around to serve those who can afford to live there.

However - back to Matt's original point ~ our urban cores can either take this time and really transition into a more dense, highly populated centers with effective public transit (which will benefit them economically), or they can try to fight the long-term trends of rising oil prices, and that city will be left behind by those cities which took the initiative now.

I look at this as a great opportunity for cities in the Rust Belt to reinvigorate themselves. Cleveland and Pittsburgh already have some existing subway/LTR infrastructure and have the urban density which is going to be an advantage from the sub-belt cities such as Atlanta, Dallas, Pheonix etc..

As energy rises, if these cities invest now in developing an even more effective public transit system, it could result in a migration back to the east (which due to the water scarcity issue in the west, may actually be a good thing!!!).

Posted by Brad | June 28, 2008 2:40 PM

"if you see a large, powerful, well-organized lobby citing the needs of the poor as the rationale for something or other they're almost certainly full of it."

Does this mean unions are full of it? Planned Parenthood? The Sierra Club? Teachers? Nurses? The NAACP?

All of these groups have powerful lobbying arms. All go to great lengths to cite "the poor" in supporting their arguments.

Or does it only count if the groups support causes you oppose?

Jesus. It gets tiresome when people cry about being the poor downtrodden underdog. We live in a democracy that is driven, at least in part, by lobbying. Worse systems have been implemented. And whatever side you are on, your side does it to. Get over it.

Oh, and by the way, do you mean to suggest that "transit" does not have a large and powerful lobby? Come to Pittsburgh once and take a look at the $400 million (or is it billion?) light rail tunnel they are digging under the river. It goes from the skyscrapers to the stadiums. For no reason. Except they had good lobbyists. Everyone knows it. Everyone knows we could have gotten a lot more for a lot less money, be it via rail or roads or rickshaw. But this is the one that we got.

Why? Not because some big powerful guy from GM with a monocle, tophat and several bags stamped "$$$" rules Washington, that's for sure.

Posted by Sam M | June 28, 2008 2:51 PM

One objection you often hear to pro-transit, pro-walking, anti-driving measures is a social justice argument that these measures will hit the poor hardest.

To the extent that such measures include higher fuel taxes and prices, the resulting revenue could obviously be used to make the rest of the tax code more progressive, and also to bolster the safety net. The evil Nordics and Dutch have both higher gas prices/taxes than us, and a more progressive package of taxes and spending.

Posted by Jasper | June 28, 2008 3:43 PM

"Not only should this specific point be remembered, but one should also recall as a general rule of thumb that if you see a large, powerful, well-organized lobby citing the needs of the poor as the rationale for something or other they're almost certainly full of it. In the real world, poor people have extremely little political clout and anything that's attracting a lot of political attention is almost certainly doing so because it's of concern to the non-poor."

Think of when conservative economists only seem to care about poor people, especially poor minorities, when talk about raising the minimum wage comes up.

Posted by Reality Man | June 28, 2008 4:58 PM

I've been, if not rich, comfortably middle-class -- and now I'm poor, even by official standards. I've lived in big cities, where I happily went car-less for up to two years at a time -- and I'm now in a rural town where, especially with a kid, it's near-impossible to function without a car. The posts that emphasize the relative immensity of utilities are also spot-on. Ditto the fact that rural taxi-companies ARE the "public transport" of the poor (the case for me, just now, till I can get my hands on a workable oldster). There's little evidence that larger jurisdictions (provincial/state or federal) are very aware of -- or care much about these truths. Especially given the rise in utility-costs, it would be reason for celebration if "rural public transit) ever got onto their radar.

Posted by gsk+ | June 28, 2008 5:11 PM

I've been, if not rich, comfortably middle-class -- and now I'm poor, even by official standards. I've lived in big cities, where I happily went car-less for up to two years at a time -- and I'm now in a rural town where, especially with a kid, it's near-impossible to function without a car. The posts that emphasize the relative immensity of utilities are also spot-on. Ditto the fact that rural taxi-companies ARE the "public transport" of the poor (the case for me, just now, till I can get my hands on a workable oldster). There's little evidence that larger jurisdictions (provincial/state or federal) are very aware of -- or care much about these truths. Especially given the rise in utility-costs, it would be reason for celebration if "rural public transit) ever got onto their radar.

Posted by gsk+ | June 28, 2008 5:11 PM

Adirondacker: "National Defense was a fig leaf... If they truly had been concerned about National Defense there would have been an effort to build a multi modal system. In the 50s everyone remembered the gas rationing of World War II, they knew that driving to work was not in the interests of National Defense.."

Sorry, have to disagree with you there. Eisenhower's desire to build a national network of roads was based in part on his experience trying to lead a large group of soliders (division?) across the midwest in the time between the wars. The lack of good quality roads made it a long arduous task that made it clear that America was going to have to have a better infrastructure for national defense.

Also, as Supreme Allied Commander during WWII, Eisenhower oversaw the bombing of the French railway network to immobilize German resistance to the invasion.

Building the interstates made sense, to Eisenhower at least. If you're moving supplies and troops by rail and you come to a bombed out bridge or section of track you're stuck. If you're moving supplies and troops by truck and you come to a crater in the road, you drive off the road, onto the shoulder, around the crater, back onto the road, and keep going.

Getting back to the topic at hand...

"...as a general rule of thumb that if you see a large, powerful, well-organized lobby citing the needs of the poor as the rationale for something or other they're almost certainly full of it."

Sorry, have to disagree with you on this. Just about every color of the political spectrum invokes the poor, the elderly, and/or - yes, wait for it - the children, to support their cause. Sometimes they're full of it, sometimes not, and sometimes they're kind of both.

Posted by MarcInSeattle | June 28, 2008 5:17 PM

Unfortunately, action to reverse climate change--which we very much do need--and rising gas prices could hurt the poor whose only access to transportation are their own automobiles. But this only increases the need to design safe, efficient mass transit systems and subsidize them so that poor people can use them cheaply. Furthermore, we need to rethink urban planning so that it is more feasible for everyone, including the poor, to use transit, bike, or walk to work.

Posted by Rulial | June 28, 2008 5:44 PM

Just want to say, Rulial is right. I wrote today in my blog a reminder-note to myself that Economy-Energy-Environment are One Thing, and we're still learning how to think that way. Having worked a while back in the green-energy sector, I watched all the old market-&-politics scenarios replay -- and they always will, but we lack the time to let them game too much. I'd only add that the planning we'll need is urban+regional+rural, ie, planning both on a larger scale and in a more integrative way[s].

Posted by gsk+ | June 28, 2008 6:05 PM

Just want to say, Rulial is right. I wrote today in my blog a reminder-note to myself that Economy-Energy-Environment are One Thing, and we're still learning how to think that way. Having worked a while back in the green-energy sector, I watched all the old market-&-politics scenarios replay -- and they always will, but we lack the time to let them game too much. I'd only add that the planning we'll need is urban+regional+rural, ie, planning both on a larger scale and in a more integrative way[s].

Posted by gsk+ | June 28, 2008 6:07 PM

Just want to say, Rulial is right. I wrote today in my blog a reminder-note to myself that Economy-Energy-Environment are One Thing, and we're still learning how to think that way. Having worked a while back in the green-energy sector, I watched all the old market-&-politics scenarios replay -- and they always will, but we lack the time to let them game too much. I'd only add that the planning we'll need is urban+regional+rural, ie, planning both on a larger scale and in a more integrative way[s].

Posted by gsk+ | June 28, 2008 6:10 PM

Come to Pittsburgh once and take a look at the $400 million (or is it billion?) light rail tunnel they are digging under the river. It goes from the skyscrapers to the stadiums. For no reason.

The point of the tunnel is to move T access across the river to the north with an eye to extending it out into the North Hills and Bellvue, Avalon, etc... It also provides an access point for buses that serve the North Hills so they don't have to come into downtown where they waste a lot of fuel and muck up traffic.

Posted by RoboticGhost | June 28, 2008 6:36 PM

Just wanted to apologize to those who wasted reading (skimming) time on my multiple posts. Still new at some aspects of the process (but ahead of John McCain, I thinj!), and the repitition won't be repeated! Again, Sorry.

Posted by gask+ | June 28, 2008 6:58 PM

Sam,
They got the money for light rail cause thats what they could get, they plan to extend it further in the future. The problem is having a dedicated funding source for transit, which the county is trying to solve through the drink tax, but unfortunately, not enough people realize that driving from cranberry will not be a reliable option in 5-10 years. Pittsburgh can be in a great position to compete in a future, less oil dependent economy, we just need enlightened leader, and a population that is willing to support the right policies. Too bad Peduto isn't mayor.

Posted by pittanylion | June 28, 2008 8:28 PM

Sam,
They got the money for light rail cause thats what they could get, they plan to extend it further in the future. The problem is having a dedicated funding source for transit, which the county is trying to solve through the drink tax, but unfortunately, not enough people realize that driving from cranberry will not be a reliable option in 5-10 years. Pittsburgh can be in a great position to compete in a future, less oil dependent economy, we just need enlightened leader, and a population that is willing to support the right policies. Too bad Peduto isn't mayor.

Posted by pittanylion | June 28, 2008 8:30 PM

Pitt,

Yes. In other words, the tunnel is a white elephant. It makes no sense whatsoever. But everyone knows that people would never vote for someone who would actually SAY what an effective transit system would cost. Because... Well, one tunnel under a river is going to cost a billion dollars.

For the same amount of money, the best transit bet would have been spent putting some sort of line from downtown to Oakland. Blah blah blah. But that's not what we got.

Either way, the transit lobby did have neough juice to get a billion dollar project through. Despite the fact that everyone with a brain knows that, in and of itself, it's a pile of shit. And quite likely a pile of shit regardless.

Seriously, for now it is going to take lawyers to Pirates games. Except, you know, the lawyers can already just walk across the bridge.

If you want a case study in why people are skeptical of transit, look no further.

I am the first to admit that the process of building roads is just as bad if not worse. But to say that "Big Transit" is innocent of the logrolling and tomfoolery that accompanies any largescale government projects is simply ridiculous. And to say that the advocates of transit do not emply the plight of "the poor" to further their ends is even more absurd.

Allow me to go back to the original post:

"one should also recall as a general rule of thumb that if you see a large, powerful, well-organized lobby citing the needs of the poor as the rationale for something or other they're almost certainly full of it."

So my question is, is the transit lobby different? Is that because people who become transit lobbyists are simply more ethical?

On a related note, which other lobbyists display similar virtue? I bet all the ones you have in mond are... people who lobby for things you like.

Now... come on. Nobody is that foolish, are they?

Posted by Sam M | June 28, 2008 8:45 PM

From Kevin's post: Two things are worth noting. First, utility costs are a bigger problem than gasoline. On a percentage basis, the poor pay 7x as much for utilities as the well off, while they pay only 4x as much for gasoline. What's more, unlike gasoline, there are seldom any reasonable alternatives for utility expenditures.

Matt is being more than a little disingenuous here, especially if one considers either the rural poor or the working class in the 20-40% range. The impact of gas prices is positively correlated with both income (of course) and location, as this NYT map makes quite clear. The 'poor' are, I suspect bifurcated between rural and urban populations in the relative impact of gas vs utilities, but that hardly eliminates the need to addresses the regressive impacts of carbon control measures.

In my opinion, those regressive impacts are not a sufficient reason to block an auction cap and trade measure. In part because the impacts of climate change are likely to be even more regressive, such as much higher food prices. But we should be honest about the impact and deal with it upfront in utilities and gas.

Posted by AJ | June 29, 2008 8:26 AM