How much the land is worth is only one of the parameters.
Notoriously, the maintenance cost for suburbs and their infrastructure is significantly lower than the tax they bring. Shouldn't that be a major point un tax decisions?
I've seen it argued both ways and I've yet to see real evidence, especially considering many suburbs are themselves actually cities/towns, and that cities seem to fight tooth-and-nail to prevent suburbs from leaving.
Have you ... looked for evidence? I guess I always felt that it was self-evident that horizontal development costs way more in terms of roads, pipes, and wires, and at the same time raises almost nothing in terms of revenues. Residential-only development patterns never pay their own way. https://resources.environment.yale.edu/kotchen/pubs/COCS.pdf
I've looked a few times, and it quickly (at least to me) appeared to depend on what you bucket and where you can torture the data and make it confess.
Single buildings can cost as much as my entire "city" - one World Trade Center alone cost $4 billion.
An example of how you can bucket things is do you look at property tax, income tax (and if you do, is it where the "nexus of generation" is done, where the worker lives, where he works, where she's headquartered, etc). Around here basically none of what we would call "support" is paid for by property tax except schools (95% or so) and sewer (which is billed as a property "tax" though it's actually per connection/size).
In my town schools aren’t 95% of property taxes but they are the majority. Add emergency services, water (though that’s a separate bill), same for electricity. Less familiar with road and bridge maintenance. Assume some comes from the state and feds but at least some is local.
It's the part that flows through the feds that lets you get whatever answer you want - is a local bridge being 80% federal and state-funded the cities supporting the town? Or is that less than the income tax taken from the local town?
I agree and you’d have to do a lot of study and the answer is still probably it depends. Presumably nuking some distressed Midwest cities isn’t the answer, and a lot of these cities are somewhat spread out. But it’s hard to argue with they’re not bringing in tax revenue because in aggregate they’re pretty poor. Some luxury high rises to replace some of the many single-family homes is not going to help Detroit absent a big influx of jobs.
That's exactly the point. On big vertical building covers 1 acre of land but it has 80 acres of interior space. There's one honking water pipe in the basement that will never need to be replaced, instead of mile after mile of water pipes with leaky fittings every 50 feet.
You have it backwards. Suburb infrastructure is expensive and the land pulls in little tax money by comparison. They're almost always a net loss on the city's budget.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted. I've definitely seen behind-the-front-seats screen ad placement and other weird things in ride shares in the U.S. so this doesn't seem out of the question.
There two main mobile OS in the space, one moron-proof but limited, the other a bit more permissive, but slightly less secure for it.
The problem is that most apps target only those two, and the second is trying to moron-proof, loosing most of it value to part of its users, while the apps are still locked in.
> A simpler answer would simply be that, if you lay someone off on the basis that an AI can replace their entire job functionality, you have to keep paying their salary dollar for dollar until they find something else to do.
This just incentivize them to find different official reason for firing. Like missed deadlines (that sudently became shorter) or in computing job code quality (due to reduced deadlines).
> This incentivizes companies to try and figure out creative ways to continue using their existing workforce to maximize the value they get out of AI systems.
This doesnothing for the current issue of job market entry positions, where there is the most pressure from AI. Only help people only in position.
That extra step mean selling what remains at low cost might be more financially interesting than if they could destroy it 'on site'.
Not a perfect solution, but it push the incentives in the right direction.
If the money is use to pay local developer, who reinvest most of it in a taxed local economy, it would need a HUGE amount of devs to match up the government's current MS license cost.
Nuclear fuel is around 2-3% of electricity cost, and there is too much worldwide supply for it to be of any concern, so it doesn't really matter where it comes from. For energy balance calculations it is accepted that nuclear energy is counted as produced where the reactor itself is.
Strategically, if nuclear power experiences a resurgence, procuring uranium could become difficult because the superpowers (Russia, China, and the US) will want to reserve it for themselves, and corresponding efforts have already begun.
The majority of nuclear-producing nations (Australia, Canada, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, etc.) will immediately comply.
Wind and sun, however, cannot be confiscated or withheld by blockade or embargo.
There is so much uranium in the ground (in the west too) that it doesn’t make sense to ”keep it” for yourself. Why would Russia wanna keep a supply for the next one million years instead of selling it and get money today? Same with all other countries with uranium.
Regarding known and exploited or rapidly exploitable deposits, we are very, very far from millions of years:
"As of 2017, identified uranium reserves recoverable at US$130/kg were 6.14 million tons (compared to 5.72 million tons in 2015). At the rate of consumption in 2017, these reserves are sufficient for slightly over 130 years of supply"
You're forgetting about the supply chain. Who manufactures all the solar panels and wind turbines? Honest question - are we increasing the risks of becoming energy dependent on China? Or does Europe have the ability to manufacture its own?
AFAIK all the raw materials (maybe not all top-notch, especially from the get go, but usable) and all the know-how exist in Europe (at worst currently working abroad), where many nations want to reindustrialize and gain autonomy.
In France numerous projects appear. Some may be too ambitious, some with a Chinese partner. In any case we will re-learn, and it will be less difficult than creating usable uranium without any adequate ore here!
Nuclear power resurgence is bullshit and it will always remain a drop in the bucket, especially for large countries. US has too much natural gas, China too much renewables, Russia well, it's of virtually no economic impact worldwide and whatever they might do is irrelevant (unless they nuke us).
Any country that starts a new nuclear power plant construction today won't finish it before electricity will be comprehensively solved by renewables. It pertains even to dictatorship where public opinion does not exist and there's no red tape (Belarus: 14 years from decision to first reactor start) let alone not in free countries. It puts them into 2040+. In EU let's say there will be certainly no fossil fuel electricity at all, maybe apart from few percents of natgas for prolonged quiet periods in winter, and whatever nuclear power remains will be easy to replace. China? go figure, they have a problem of removing coal generation and that's essentially same as nuclear from standpoint of its behaviour on the grid, and there is so much more coal, nuclear will be squashed simply as a byproduct of whatever solution (which will likely be solar+batteries) they come up with.
Notoriously, the maintenance cost for suburbs and their infrastructure is significantly lower than the tax they bring. Shouldn't that be a major point un tax decisions?
reply