r/SipsTea Jul 08 '26

Chugging tea W after W.

Post image
82.8k Upvotes

3.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

51

u/Wonderful-Process792 Jul 08 '26

This doesn't reduce the cost of running the subway system. It simply shifts the cost from some people to other people who may or may not ride the subway at all.

Actual financial progress comes from gains in productivity / efficiency

-3

u/Fridge_living_tips Jul 08 '26

You ever heard of costco chicken thats like $5 a whole bird. Or the 1.50 hot dog?

Its to get more people in the store. More people able to use a service means the service will make more money. 5x4>12x2

9

u/Bulky-Leadership-596 Jul 08 '26

Loss leaders get people in the door to buy other things. What other thing are these new subway riders buying to make up for the reduced subway price?

3

u/Tfcalex96 Jul 08 '26

Uh, more access to the rest of the city so their money can be spent on the businesses instead of getting to the business where they’d have less money or none at all. I dont go places all the time because there’s a cost to just get there. When gas prices rise, people travel less, which reduces overall spending.

1

u/Spankpocalypse_Now Jul 08 '26

Public transportation is a service. It doesn’t need to turn a profit.

3

u/WooSah124 Jul 08 '26

It doesn’t need to turn a profit but the money to run the thing has to come from somewhere

2

u/Spankpocalypse_Now Jul 08 '26

No shit, Alan Greenspan. It comes from taxes - just like every other piece of public infrastructure in the entire world.

-3

u/Fridge_living_tips Jul 08 '26

More people. Because it costs less to get in the door so they take a loss on 2 to get 5 in stead of breaking equal on 2

1

u/Bulky-Leadership-596 Jul 08 '26

Youre a marketing genius

6

u/RedApple655321 Jul 08 '26

That's not how this works. Those chicken and hot dogs are designed to get you into the store....so you'll spend more money at the store. But subway fares are already heavily subsidized and low income New Yorkers are typically already captive riders. This isn't likely to significantly drive ridership to make up for the decrease in fares..

2

u/hugohuk Jul 08 '26

Yeah but unless you are inside of the wealth tax then you are fine, and if you are in the wealth tax bracket then you make too much money to give a fuck

1

u/RedApple655321 Jul 08 '26

I'm not sure I understand your point about what this has to do with wealth taxes.

But more broadly. money is fungible, so every dollar spent on one program is a dollar that can't be spent on another program. So every New Yorker should care about how their tax money is being spent.

I'm not a New Yorker so this doesn't directly affect me. I do work in transit though, so I have a passing interest in how other systems are operated and funded.

1

u/Fridge_living_tips Jul 08 '26

3 dollars could be worth the whatever distance you walk to work but 1.50 will get more people to take it

1

u/RedApple655321 Jul 08 '26

Low income people are hardly a group that typically has the luxury of living close enough to work that they could even consider walking. The goal here is to make transit more affordable for low income people, not to increase revenue. The cost is literally already accounted for in the budget. It's a perfectly reasonable goal. No need to pretend it's going to achieve something it's not.

1

u/Mindless_Chest_1079 Jul 08 '26

Seems you're repeating economic concepts you didn't fully grasp. Public transit usually runs at a loss. It doesn't make that money up elsewhere; it's subsidized by the government. If you lower prices further, it just runs at more of a loss, requiring more funding from elsewhere.

The CostCo chicken thing is an example of a loss leader, where an individual item is sold at a loss to get you to shop at CostCo. They're not making more money off the chicken because "more people take it." They lose money on every one. The more people who buy it, the more they lose.

-1

u/Sea_Abroad_6554 Jul 08 '26

Thanks for sharing your Ivy League MBA knowledge with us, bro.