No more 'rainbow' crosswalks in the USA?

[Bruce]

As long as the crosswalk is clearly identifiable as a crosswalk, then the design is fine.

Seattle's are approaching a decade in age and are definitely in need of a repaint. Or even better, replacing them with bricks or a different paver that would be more distinct (and resistant to wear).

[vdeane]

Usual response is that while some top brass are political appointes, lower level bureaucracy stays and keeps things going. But looks like those lower level professionals are no longer there, most likely boomers going into sunset.

A few reasons why there are a lot fewer people there.  I'm most familiar with the NY division since I know people there, but they lost a very large chunk of people in the last six months.  Not many retirements, either.  They lost a couple (which percentage-wise is a lot, since division offices aren't very big) in the DOGE layoffs, and between those, the current administration making working conditions a lot worse (r/FedNews can summarize that a lot better than I can, but suffice to say this isn't a case of "they won't let us telecommute any more so I quit"), and threats of future, more wide-scale layoffs, a very large chunk of staff took the last deferred resignation offer.  Two of the displaced feds now work for NYSDOT.

[kalvado]

Usual response is that while some top brass are political appointes, lower level bureaucracy stays and keeps things going. But looks like those lower level professionals are no longer there, most likely boomers going into sunset.

A few reasons why there are a lot fewer people there.  I'm most familiar with the NY division since I know people there, but they lost a very large chunk of people in the last six months.  Not many retirements, either.  They lost a couple (which percentage-wise is a lot, since division offices aren't very big) in the DOGE layoffs, and between those, the current administration making working conditions a lot worse (r/FedNews can summarize that a lot better than I can, but suffice to say this isn't a case of "they won't let us telecommute any more so I quit"), and threats of future, more wide-scale layoffs, a very large chunk of staff took the last deferred resignation offer.  Two of the displaced feds now work for NYSDOT.

You are talking about short term trends, which are largely driven by desperate need for budget cuts. There are also a long term trends, you actually gave a very interesting insight at some point when talking about very nysdot conservative design approaches.... That was a few years ago...

[Scott5114]

You are talking about short term trends, which are largely driven by desperate need for budget cuts.

There is no desperate need for budget cuts.

[kalvado]

You are talking about short term trends, which are largely driven by desperate need for budget cuts.

There is no desperate need for budget cuts.

You would probably argue "tax the rich" is the answer. I suspect the answer is "rich become super rich because government frivolous spending ends up in a stock market".
So you are not wrong, but it may be a half of the answer at best.

[Scott5114]

I suspect the answer is "rich become super rich because government frivolous spending ends up in a stock market".

Do you have anything backing up that suspicion, or did you find it in your basement behind the Christmas decorations?

If the government isn't building roads, people like Valerie aren't getting paid, and as far as I know Valerie is not a stock market. (I might be wrong. She can correct me if she is, possibly by rallying by a few points.)

[kalvado]

I suspect the answer is "rich become super rich because government frivolous spending ends up in a stock market".

Do you have anything backing up that suspicion, or did you find it in your basement behind the Christmas decorations?

If the government isn't building roads, people like Valerie aren't getting paid, and as far as I know Valerie is not a stock market. (I might be wrong. She can correct me if she is, possibly by rallying by a few points.)

That's absolutely part of the problem. Spending cuts echo multifold within economy. But what if there is no money to spend to begin with? And money just flows away.
You may talk about internal taxes all you want, but external trade deficit is still $10 per person per day. That is the part probably impossible to close by redistribution of internal flows.

[Scott5114]

That's absolutely part of the problem. Spending cuts echo multifold within economy. But what if there is no money to spend to begin with?

What if the moon was made of pudding?

You may talk about internal taxes all you want, but external trade deficit is still $10 per person per day.

Why does this matter at all?

I have a massive trade deficit with WinCo. I buy their groceries all the time but they never buy playing cards or road signs from me. The world goes round.

[SEWIGuy]

I suspect the answer is "rich become super rich because government frivolous spending ends up in a stock market".

Do you have anything backing up that suspicion, or did you find it in your basement behind the Christmas decorations?

If the government isn't building roads, people like Valerie aren't getting paid, and as far as I know Valerie is not a stock market. (I might be wrong. She can correct me if she is, possibly by rallying by a few points.)

That's absolutely part of the problem. Spending cuts echo multifold within economy. But what if there is no money to spend to begin with? And money just flows away.
You may talk about internal taxes all you want, but external trade deficit is still $10 per person per day. That is the part probably impossible to close by redistribution of internal flows.

Trade deficits really aren't a problem. Its just one country makes stuff (often because it is relatively poor) that another country purchases (often because it is relatively rich.)

[kalvado]

I suspect the answer is "rich become super rich because government frivolous spending ends up in a stock market".

Do you have anything backing up that suspicion, or did you find it in your basement behind the Christmas decorations?

If the government isn't building roads, people like Valerie aren't getting paid, and as far as I know Valerie is not a stock market. (I might be wrong. She can correct me if she is, possibly by rallying by a few points.)

That's absolutely part of the problem. Spending cuts echo multifold within economy. But what if there is no money to spend to begin with? And money just flows away.
You may talk about internal taxes all you want, but external trade deficit is still $10 per person per day. That is the part probably impossible to close by redistribution of internal flows.

Trade deficits really aren't a problem. Its just one country makes stuff (often because it is relatively poor) that another country purchases (often because it is relatively rich.)

Lol, what can I say.. did you guys ever defaulted on your credit cards? You know, when you make less than you spend and it catches you at some point?

[Scott5114]

Lol, what can I say.. did you guys ever defaulted on your credit cards? You know, when you make less than you spend and it catches you at some point?

Except that's not what's happening at all.

I live in Las Vegas. We make hardly anything here, because most agriculture and manufacturing processes require water and we don't have that. If you calculated trade deficits per-state we'd have a massive trade deficit with California and Oregon because we have to import pretty much all our food from those two states. (I guess Utah and Idaho too.)

Yet the city of Las Vegas still brings in enough money in services—entertainment primarily—to power the entire state of Nevada to the point that it is self-sustaining with no income taxes. But because none of that is physical goods, none of it counts toward the trade deficit.

Somehow Nevada still continues to thrive, though.

[kalvado]

Lol, what can I say.. did you guys ever defaulted on your credit cards? You know, when you make less than you spend and it catches you at some point?

Except that's not what's happening at all.

I live in Las Vegas. We make hardly anything here, because most agriculture and manufacturing processes require water and we don't have that. If you calculated trade deficits per-state we'd have a massive trade deficit with California and Oregon because we have to import pretty much all our food from those two states. (I guess Utah and Idaho too.)

Yet the city of Las Vegas still brings in enough money in services—entertainment primarily—to power the entire state of Nevada to the point that it is self-sustaining with no income taxes. But because none of that is physical goods, none of it counts toward the trade deficit.

Somehow Nevada still continues to thrive, though.

The trade deficit is a grand total of goods and services paid for by the country, less goods and services acquired from abroad.  That is, how much money crossed the border in each direction.

[SEWIGuy]

I suspect the answer is "rich become super rich because government frivolous spending ends up in a stock market".

Do you have anything backing up that suspicion, or did you find it in your basement behind the Christmas decorations?

If the government isn't building roads, people like Valerie aren't getting paid, and as far as I know Valerie is not a stock market. (I might be wrong. She can correct me if she is, possibly by rallying by a few points.)

That's absolutely part of the problem. Spending cuts echo multifold within economy. But what if there is no money to spend to begin with? And money just flows away.
You may talk about internal taxes all you want, but external trade deficit is still $10 per person per day. That is the part probably impossible to close by redistribution of internal flows.

Trade deficits really aren't a problem. Its just one country makes stuff (often because it is relatively poor) that another country purchases (often because it is relatively rich.)

Lol, what can I say.. did you guys ever defaulted on your credit cards? You know, when you make less than you spend and it catches you at some point?

Holy sh*t is that a terrible analogy.  I make money doing my job, and then I buy things that other people make. There is no debt involved. That's exactly what is happening on a national scale.

It's a made up problem.

[SEWIGuy]

Lol, what can I say.. did you guys ever defaulted on your credit cards? You know, when you make less than you spend and it catches you at some point?

Except that's not what's happening at all.

I live in Las Vegas. We make hardly anything here, because most agriculture and manufacturing processes require water and we don't have that. If you calculated trade deficits per-state we'd have a massive trade deficit with California and Oregon because we have to import pretty much all our food from those two states. (I guess Utah and Idaho too.)

Yet the city of Las Vegas still brings in enough money in services—entertainment primarily—to power the entire state of Nevada to the point that it is self-sustaining with no income taxes. But because none of that is physical goods, none of it counts toward the trade deficit.

Somehow Nevada still continues to thrive, though.

The trade deficit is a grand total of goods and services paid for by the country, less goods and services acquired from abroad.  That is, how much money crossed the border in each direction.

When I buy things from Target, all of the money goes in one direction too. Do I have a trade deficit with Target? No, because in return for the money, I am buying items I believe are at least of equal value.

That's exact what is going on here. The money that is "crossing the border" is being used to purchase goods that are also "crossing the border."

[Max Rockatansky]

How cool are we as a collective hobby when we start a rousing discussion over non-standard crosswalks only to segway wildly into trade deficits? 

[Rothman]

Usual response is that while some top brass are political appointes, lower level bureaucracy stays and keeps things going. But looks like those lower level professionals are no longer there, most likely boomers going into sunset.

A few reasons why there are a lot fewer people there.  I'm most familiar with the NY division since I know people there, but they lost a very large chunk of people in the last six months.  Not many retirements, either.  They lost a couple (which percentage-wise is a lot, since division offices aren't very big) in the DOGE layoffs, and between those, the current administration making working conditions a lot worse (r/FedNews can summarize that a lot better than I can, but suffice to say this isn't a case of "they won't let us telecommute any more so I quit"), and threats of future, more wide-scale layoffs, a very large chunk of staff took the last deferred resignation offer.  Two of the displaced feds now work for NYSDOT.

You are talking about short term trends, which are largely driven by desperate need for budget cuts. There are also a long term trends, you actually gave a very interesting insight at some point when talking about very nysdot conservative design approaches.... That was a few years ago...

This b.s. stinks very, very strongly.

ETA:  Egads...Trade deficit...tied to layoffs at FHWA?  The absurdities abound.

I am just tired of crap like this...

[vdeane]

Usual response is that while some top brass are political appointes, lower level bureaucracy stays and keeps things going. But looks like those lower level professionals are no longer there, most likely boomers going into sunset.

A few reasons why there are a lot fewer people there.  I'm most familiar with the NY division since I know people there, but they lost a very large chunk of people in the last six months.  Not many retirements, either.  They lost a couple (which percentage-wise is a lot, since division offices aren't very big) in the DOGE layoffs, and between those, the current administration making working conditions a lot worse (r/FedNews can summarize that a lot better than I can, but suffice to say this isn't a case of "they won't let us telecommute any more so I quit"), and threats of future, more wide-scale layoffs, a very large chunk of staff took the last deferred resignation offer.  Two of the displaced feds now work for NYSDOT.

You are talking about short term trends, which are largely driven by desperate need for budget cuts. There are also a long term trends, you actually gave a very interesting insight at some point when talking about very nysdot conservative design approaches.... That was a few years ago...

If there's such a desperate need for budget cuts, then how can we possibly afford the tax cuts that just passed Congress?  You don't take a lower-paying job when you're already unable to afford to pay the bills.

[Scott5114]

Usual response is that while some top brass are political appointes, lower level bureaucracy stays and keeps things going. But looks like those lower level professionals are no longer there, most likely boomers going into sunset.

A few reasons why there are a lot fewer people there.  I'm most familiar with the NY division since I know people there, but they lost a very large chunk of people in the last six months.  Not many retirements, either.  They lost a couple (which percentage-wise is a lot, since division offices aren't very big) in the DOGE layoffs, and between those, the current administration making working conditions a lot worse (r/FedNews can summarize that a lot better than I can, but suffice to say this isn't a case of "they won't let us telecommute any more so I quit"), and threats of future, more wide-scale layoffs, a very large chunk of staff took the last deferred resignation offer.  Two of the displaced feds now work for NYSDOT.

You are talking about short term trends, which are largely driven by desperate need for budget cuts. There are also a long term trends, you actually gave a very interesting insight at some point when talking about very nysdot conservative design approaches.... That was a few years ago...

If there's such a desperate need for budget cuts, then how can we possibly afford the tax cuts that just passed Congress?  You don't take a lower-paying job when you're already unable to afford to pay the bills.

Oh, hey, there you are. Can you confirm that you're not a stock market real quick?

[vdeane]

Usual response is that while some top brass are political appointes, lower level bureaucracy stays and keeps things going. But looks like those lower level professionals are no longer there, most likely boomers going into sunset.

A few reasons why there are a lot fewer people there.  I'm most familiar with the NY division since I know people there, but they lost a very large chunk of people in the last six months.  Not many retirements, either.  They lost a couple (which percentage-wise is a lot, since division offices aren't very big) in the DOGE layoffs, and between those, the current administration making working conditions a lot worse (r/FedNews can summarize that a lot better than I can, but suffice to say this isn't a case of "they won't let us telecommute any more so I quit"), and threats of future, more wide-scale layoffs, a very large chunk of staff took the last deferred resignation offer.  Two of the displaced feds now work for NYSDOT.

You are talking about short term trends, which are largely driven by desperate need for budget cuts. There are also a long term trends, you actually gave a very interesting insight at some point when talking about very nysdot conservative design approaches.... That was a few years ago...

If there's such a desperate need for budget cuts, then how can we possibly afford the tax cuts that just passed Congress?  You don't take a lower-paying job when you're already unable to afford to pay the bills.

Oh, hey, there you are. Can you confirm that you're not a stock market real quick?

I'm not a stock market (at least as far as I'm aware; there are times when I'm half convinced that the universe is a simulation and I'm just an AI that accidentally became sentient), though that does remind me, I really need to see if there's any way I can protect my money from the rapidly declining value of the US dollar.

[Rothman]

I wish I was a stock market.  How do I become one?

[Max Rockatansky]

I wish I was a stock market.  How do I become one?

You have your organs replaced by a mechanical stock ticker.

[kalvado]

Usual response is that while some top brass are political appointes, lower level bureaucracy stays and keeps things going. But looks like those lower level professionals are no longer there, most likely boomers going into sunset.

A few reasons why there are a lot fewer people there.  I'm most familiar with the NY division since I know people there, but they lost a very large chunk of people in the last six months.  Not many retirements, either.  They lost a couple (which percentage-wise is a lot, since division offices aren't very big) in the DOGE layoffs, and between those, the current administration making working conditions a lot worse (r/FedNews can summarize that a lot better than I can, but suffice to say this isn't a case of "they won't let us telecommute any more so I quit"), and threats of future, more wide-scale layoffs, a very large chunk of staff took the last deferred resignation offer.  Two of the displaced feds now work for NYSDOT.

You are talking about short term trends, which are largely driven by desperate need for budget cuts. There are also a long term trends, you actually gave a very interesting insight at some point when talking about very nysdot conservative design approaches.... That was a few years ago...

If there's such a desperate need for budget cuts, then how can we possibly afford the tax cuts that just passed Congress?  You don't take a lower-paying job when you're already unable to afford to pay the bills.

Did I say that's a good idea? I can see some logic behind that, but just  enough logic to react with raised eyebrows - as opposed to banging head against the wall.

[kalvado]

Usual response is that while some top brass are political appointes, lower level bureaucracy stays and keeps things going. But looks like those lower level professionals are no longer there, most likely boomers going into sunset.

A few reasons why there are a lot fewer people there.  I'm most familiar with the NY division since I know people there, but they lost a very large chunk of people in the last six months.  Not many retirements, either.  They lost a couple (which percentage-wise is a lot, since division offices aren't very big) in the DOGE layoffs, and between those, the current administration making working conditions a lot worse (r/FedNews can summarize that a lot better than I can, but suffice to say this isn't a case of "they won't let us telecommute any more so I quit"), and threats of future, more wide-scale layoffs, a very large chunk of staff took the last deferred resignation offer.  Two of the displaced feds now work for NYSDOT.

You are talking about short term trends, which are largely driven by desperate need for budget cuts. There are also a long term trends, you actually gave a very interesting insight at some point when talking about very nysdot conservative design approaches.... That was a few years ago...

This b.s. stinks very, very strongly.

ETA:  Egads...Trade deficit...tied to layoffs at FHWA?  The absurdities abound.

I am just tired of crap like this...

Ok, simplified version for DOT engineers: in 2024, highway trust fund balance was $26.7B in red. That is $85 a year per capita.
Of course, you would say "step up taxes to close the gap", and of course I would be with you if it was an isolated issue.  but it's one of many soars.  And I am not sure too many people can pay a few more thousand in taxes a year as required to start closing gaps. Even if they can afford another $100 in gas taxes.
With that, why do you need people in offices if there are no underlying budgets?

[cu2010]

Usual response is that while some top brass are political appointes, lower level bureaucracy stays and keeps things going. But looks like those lower level professionals are no longer there, most likely boomers going into sunset.

A few reasons why there are a lot fewer people there.  I'm most familiar with the NY division since I know people there, but they lost a very large chunk of people in the last six months.  Not many retirements, either.  They lost a couple (which percentage-wise is a lot, since division offices aren't very big) in the DOGE layoffs, and between those, the current administration making working conditions a lot worse (r/FedNews can summarize that a lot better than I can, but suffice to say this isn't a case of "they won't let us telecommute any more so I quit"), and threats of future, more wide-scale layoffs, a very large chunk of staff took the last deferred resignation offer.  Two of the displaced feds now work for NYSDOT.

You are talking about short term trends, which are largely driven by desperate need for budget cuts. There are also a long term trends, you actually gave a very interesting insight at some point when talking about very nysdot conservative design approaches.... That was a few years ago...

This b.s. stinks very, very strongly.

ETA:  Egads...Trade deficit...tied to layoffs at FHWA?  The absurdities abound.

I am just tired of crap like this...

Ok, simplified version for DOT engineers: in 2024, highway trust fund balance was $26.7B in red. That is $85 a year per capita.
Of course, you would say "step up taxes to close the gap", and of course I would be with you if it was an isolated issue.  but it's one of many soars.  And I am not sure too many people can pay a few more thousand in taxes a year as required to start closing gaps. Even if they can afford another $100 in gas taxes.
With that, why do you need people in offices if there are no underlying budgets?

A few thousand more in taxes will not break billionaires. Hell, a few hundred thousand more in taxes will not break billionaires.

It really is that simple.

[Rothman]

Usual response is that while some top brass are political appointes, lower level bureaucracy stays and keeps things going. But looks like those lower level professionals are no longer there, most likely boomers going into sunset.

A few reasons why there are a lot fewer people there.  I'm most familiar with the NY division since I know people there, but they lost a very large chunk of people in the last six months.  Not many retirements, either.  They lost a couple (which percentage-wise is a lot, since division offices aren't very big) in the DOGE layoffs, and between those, the current administration making working conditions a lot worse (r/FedNews can summarize that a lot better than I can, but suffice to say this isn't a case of "they won't let us telecommute any more so I quit"), and threats of future, more wide-scale layoffs, a very large chunk of staff took the last deferred resignation offer.  Two of the displaced feds now work for NYSDOT.

You are talking about short term trends, which are largely driven by desperate need for budget cuts. There are also a long term trends, you actually gave a very interesting insight at some point when talking about very nysdot conservative design approaches.... That was a few years ago...

This b.s. stinks very, very strongly.

ETA:  Egads...Trade deficit...tied to layoffs at FHWA?  The absurdities abound.

I am just tired of crap like this...

Ok, simplified version for DOT engineers: in 2024, highway trust fund balance was $26.7B in red. That is $85 a year per capita.
Of course, you would say "step up taxes to close the gap", and of course I would be with you if it was an isolated issue.  but it's one of many soars.  And I am not sure too many people can pay a few more thousand in taxes a year as required to start closing gaps. Even if they can afford another $100 in gas taxes.
With that, why do you need people in offices if there are no underlying budgets?

You have demonstrated little understanding of reality on this matter.  All I know is that FHWA is now crippled and projects are now being delayed because of the arbitrary layoffs inflicted by DOGE.  In other words, there are too few people to handle the funding that is available. 

I find the idea of the trust fund to be "in the red" to be a ridiculous reason to justify FHWA layoffs.  Ratchet back apportionments to states if that is somehow some portion of the federal deficit.  Firing FHWA employees doesn't help with that regard.

Of course, I note that your silly trade deficit argument's disappeared...

We really need to do something about misinformation in this country and how it affects voting and other actions.  That said, I don't have much hope in finding a solution to that, or the current increasing deficit in critical thinking...

Things will just get worse.