We have programs for both reforestation and for wetland preservation. With any conservation proposal, one must weigh the pros and cons.
In this case it is true that hydropower is cheap and clean. However, the negative externality of destroying the salmon run is much more than "some fishis" that some Indian tribes cared about.
Aboriginal annual salmon catches have been estimated at over 10 million pounds for year. On top of that, the migration of pacific salmon upriver represents an enormous transfer of nutrients upstream. Salmon are a keystone species and are vitally important for the health of forests.
Unfortunately, the salmon run cannot easily coexist with the dams. Yes, there is value in the hydropower. Yes, it is cheap, clean energy. But it is certainly not without cost. We could be reaping the benefits of one of the largest animal migrations on our planet in a sustainable way. Even disregarding the cultural importance to native peoples there is still enormous economic and ecological value in having a healthy salmon run.
10 mil pounds of salmon is about $30mil worth of salmon a year at today's retail prices. And more salmon would depress those prices. Economically speaking, the entire aboriginal catch is a drop in the bucket and not worth the benefit of a single dam.
For comparison, the US alone currently harvests 100's of mil pounds of salmon a year. Alaska alone produces 500mil pounds last year (and this was the lowest in decades). Norway harvests around 3 BILLION pounds of salmon a year.
It's not necessarily clean either. Depending on what was flooded, if there's any forest involved it can be much worse in terms of GHGs than the equivalent coal plant because of decaying plant matter.
Although it may be true that 80% of drivers are working part time, it is still reasonable to assume that a disproportionate number of miles driven, and therefore wages paid, are being done by the full time drivers.
As an extension, there is a utilitarian argument that says a full time driver will benefit substantially more from the minimum wage than a part time driver will suffer.
Regardless, I think appealing to the proportion of drivers is misplaced. It would be unsurprising to me if more than 80% of trips were completed by full time drivers.
I disagree. If the intent is to help the 20% of drivers who don't have another job (unclear if they're all full time or not but they seem to be the group that you're most concerned with), then it would be better to see regulation that targets them specifically.
Making it unviable for 80% or more of the drivers to benefit the 20% is a tradeoff that one doesn't have to make. There's nothing in the rulebook for creating regulation that says you have to be so heavy handed. All it shows us is that these are lazy regulators who didn't bother to write decent regulations.
Then you'd be encouraging migration from every other industry into Uber/Lyft because, as you say, no other job offers the same flexibility. So why would I work anywhere else if my minimum is the same? Mostly benefits & inertia of life inhibiting trying new things will prevent some of it but there will still be meaningful migration. The de facto wage would probably raise a bit as competition for workers ripples & Uber/Lyft would start implementing caps on how many drivers there can be (because a lot more will still value the flexibility highly) to better control their prices since the demand pricing has a legal floor above the market rate.
This is all obviously assuming there's about a stable mix of minimum wage jobs available in the market to people who need them. Remember that this job needs a new car every few years so there's a bit of capital investment required to maintain this job. There are financing options available but now suddenly this minimum wage work is further costing you even more to pay the financing. Then you're left trying to address that.
Every legal change to the market can have unintended consequences and infinite imagined ones in advance. Some times it's better to just stick to simple tweaks/changes that have a pretty well trodden path of study by economists. It is also important for cities to explore different things too though so that we can collect the data but which city really wants to do that with its citizens, especially how hard it is to pass helpful reforms for which the market response is well-studied and the law easy to explain to people.
Maybe this depends on the locale, but in Houston 90% of the uber drivers that have driven me worked for Uber because of the flexibility.
It was a guy who just started an insurance company with his wife and they were taking turns ubering when they could to help pay the bills until their company got off the ground.
It was a wife who was saving up for a kitchen remodel she wanted.
Several people who were retired.
Several people with waxing/waning medical issues.
In my experience there weren't a lot of people who were using uber/lyft for their long-term income, which make sense because the pay isn't very high, there aren't any promotions, and many of the individuals who would be interested in a that type of job don't have a nice enough car or have other issues that prevent them from driving for Uber.
If the price of the house rises faster than inflation, it is a good investment. However, rising faster than inflation also means that they become proportionally less affordable over time. You cannot have both affordable housing and high returns from housing
> You cannot have both affordable housing and high returns from housing
Sure, you can, but only if real estate in established neighborhoods is more expensive than housing in new neighborhoods, which isn't hyperlocally sustainable but might be sustainable over a broader region.
You sort of can, but it requires increasing density (so per square foot stays similar but those with low incomes can still afford a small place) or older neighborhoods becoming more expensive than newer neighborhoods (happens all the time).
Increasing density likely implies displacing the people presently in the expensive neighborhood for construction. In the U.S. anyway, that’s easier said than done. So that’s definitely a theoretical solution but I’m not sure how practical it is.
Also, inflation causes the value of debt to decrease over time. (Wages are sticky, but when they catch up, inflation causes debt to go down as the value of currency decreases.)
In this case it is true that hydropower is cheap and clean. However, the negative externality of destroying the salmon run is much more than "some fishis" that some Indian tribes cared about.
Aboriginal annual salmon catches have been estimated at over 10 million pounds for year. On top of that, the migration of pacific salmon upriver represents an enormous transfer of nutrients upstream. Salmon are a keystone species and are vitally important for the health of forests.
Unfortunately, the salmon run cannot easily coexist with the dams. Yes, there is value in the hydropower. Yes, it is cheap, clean energy. But it is certainly not without cost. We could be reaping the benefits of one of the largest animal migrations on our planet in a sustainable way. Even disregarding the cultural importance to native peoples there is still enormous economic and ecological value in having a healthy salmon run.