sometimes I wish that every article naming how much a public service would cost (or how much it would cost to repair needed infrastructure for the service or to make the service more accessible to disabled people and poor people) would explain that number in terms of how much time it takes a billionaire to earn that much.
like "it would cost $8.6 million (or, a little under one hour of Bezos's earnings) to build a new public library building in this area which would serve 45 thousand people."
money is literally a social and political representation of how we are choosing to allocate resources. I wish these direct comparisons were made so people who haven't yet made the connection might at least start asking "huh... why should we allocate these resources to one person to do nothing with them instead of to 45 thousand people in the form of an essential service? why do we allocate this amount of resources to this one person every single hour of every single day but it's unthinkable to provide it to tens of thousands of people just once? why are tens of thousands of people (of which I am one), all of us collectively, less valuable than this one guy?"
- This is a good idea.
- When it comes to dealing with politicians talking about cost to the taxpayer, divide it by the number of people it will serve; annualize if appropriate. "This new library will cost $8.6 million, serve 45,000, and last at least 25 years - less than $8 per person per year".
I also like framing it in terms of what it saves, eg, this tram line will cost 5.6 million, reducing traffic congestion by 20%, save 500,000 per year in wear and tear on roads, save 0.8 million a year in health care costs related to pollution, in addition to incalculable health care savings by reducing stress of heavy commutes, increase tourism income by X, etc, etc, etc. We can't just talk about the costs of changing. We have to talk about the costs of continuing to do things the same way








