Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Ruin of Mumbai

asteriskmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 40 posts

Re: The Ruin of Mumbai

#11

Post by alephnerd »

geodel wrote: post #10
user_7832 wrote: post #6

As a Mumbaiker, I would also like to provide a bit of context that may not be obvious (but unfortunately isn't surprising) - the BMC (Municipal Corporation) is considered quite ineffective/corrupt/lazy by most citizens, despite being the richest municipal body in the world (with a budget of ₹59,954 crore this year, which I tried to convert to USD but I can't keep track of all zeros). Every year there are numerous dea…

> the BMC (Municipal Corporation) is considered quite ineffective/corrupt/lazy by most citizens, despite being the richest municipal body in the world Well when one divide total budget by population per person won't be much. Economist and even politicians mentioned as much that Indian tax revenues per person are 1/20th of first world but regardless they do think they deserve facilities comparable to developed nations…

Municipal Government in India answer to and get funded directly by either State Level planning authorities or Central Government IAS.

Municipal Corporations all over India have minimal autonomy outside of PWD procurement [0].

[0] - https://www.impriindia.com/insights/urban-governance-in-indi...

Re: The Ruin of Mumbai

#12

Post by taneq »

jkic47 wrote: post #3

In fraught issues like rent control and housing, I often see claims like the one in the article that people moving to cities can see up to a 30% increase in income, but they never seem to factor in the increase in costs, which could be far higher than 30%, leading to a net loss. Same story with global warming claiming additional deaths due to increased temperatures without the corresponding statistic on deaths due to…

There are some pitfalls in comparing percentages like this. Net profit (or disposable income - it’s weird how different the connotations of these terms are) is a much better measure. Consider a farm worker who’s paid $10/day, and pays $1/day for bread and board. They move to the city where they’re paid $13/day and pay $3/day in living expenses. That’s 30% more pay but 300% higher costs. Assuming all else is equal (quality of life etc) are they better off?

Re: The Ruin of Mumbai

#13

Post by anonyfox »

taneq wrote: post #12
jkic47 wrote: post #3

In fraught issues like rent control and housing, I often see claims like the one in the article that people moving to cities can see up to a 30% increase in income, but they never seem to factor in the increase in costs, which could be far higher than 30%, leading to a net loss. Same story with global warming claiming additional deaths due to increased temperatures without the corresponding statistic on deaths due to…

There are some pitfalls in comparing percentages like this. Net profit (or disposable income - it’s weird how different the connotations of these terms are) is a much better measure. Consider a farm worker who’s paid $10/day, and pays $1/day for bread and board. They move to the city where they’re paid $13/day and pay $3/day in living expenses. That’s 30% more pay but 300% higher costs. Assuming all else is equal (qu…

if finances remain equal-ish, then I'd say it depends on the individuum and exact circumstances.

For example I hate living in the countryside or small village - I'd always pick the densest/urban/modern area I can afford to live, just because I crave the buzzing energy and constant novelty and stimulating options around. But other people can be the exact opposite.

Re: The Ruin of Mumbai

#14

Post by anon291 »

donbox wrote: post #9
user_7832 wrote: post #6

As a Mumbaiker, I would also like to provide a bit of context that may not be obvious (but unfortunately isn't surprising) - the BMC (Municipal Corporation) is considered quite ineffective/corrupt/lazy by most citizens, despite being the richest municipal body in the world (with a budget of ₹59,954 crore this year, which I tried to convert to USD but I can't keep track of all zeros). Every year there are numerous dea…

INR 59,954 crore is around 7 Billion USD.

I was going to say... for a city with a population almost that of the entire state of California, this is hardly anything. To put that in perspective, California spends 200-300 billion each year.

Re: The Ruin of Mumbai

#15

Post by anon291 »

I have never lived in Bombay, but my parents grew up there, and our family history there goes back to before it was even a city. Indians have an insatiable appetite for centralized economic planning that has done nothing but hurt the country. For me, it's inexplicable, but it's often like trying to talk at a wall. It makes American NIMBY's look like transit advocates.

And for all the fascination with bureaucracy, the bureaucracy is never efficient. My aunts and uncles who landlorded there for a while had so much trouble evicting tenants for things that would be trivial in America, such as failure to pay. Courts, municipal officials, just drag their feet. It's a cultural problem, and shocks the American conscience.

Such a sad squandering of potential and a good case study in how culture absolutely affects outcomes.

Re: The Ruin of Mumbai

#16

Post by snapplebobapple »

anon291 wrote: post #14
donbox wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

INR 59,954 crore is around 7 Billion USD.

I was going to say... for a city with a population almost that of the entire state of California, this is hardly anything. To put that in perspective, California spends 200-300 billion each year.

How do you figured that? Average salary in california is around 10 times that of mumbai and population of greater mumbai is slightly more than half california. That adjusts the comparison to roughly 140 billion mumvai vs 200 billion california. So mumbai is marginally more efficient than one of the worst run us states by roughetrics. I suspect it should be considered worse because corruption at 8k a year average income cuts a lot worse than equivalent percentage corruption at 80k income

Re: The Ruin of Mumbai

#17

Post by user_7832 »

anon291 wrote: post #14
donbox wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

INR 59,954 crore is around 7 Billion USD.

I was going to say... for a city with a population almost that of the entire state of California, this is hardly anything. To put that in perspective, California spends 200-300 billion each year.

Possibly, but things like roads and waterways are much fewer/smaller/shorter, as Mumbai is geographically an extremely small city for its population. It becomes even more obvious statistically once you remove the national park in the north from land area calculations.

In any case, there are lots of factors, but I think most Mumbaikars would agree that the city could be run much better with similar/the same resources.

Re: The Ruin of Mumbai

#18

Post by user_7832 »

geodel wrote: post #10
user_7832 wrote: post #6

As a Mumbaiker, I would also like to provide a bit of context that may not be obvious (but unfortunately isn't surprising) - the BMC (Municipal Corporation) is considered quite ineffective/corrupt/lazy by most citizens, despite being the richest municipal body in the world (with a budget of ₹59,954 crore this year, which I tried to convert to USD but I can't keep track of all zeros). Every year there are numerous dea…

> the BMC (Municipal Corporation) is considered quite ineffective/corrupt/lazy by most citizens, despite being the richest municipal body in the world Well when one divide total budget by population per person won't be much. Economist and even politicians mentioned as much that Indian tax revenues per person are 1/20th of first world but regardless they do think they deserve facilities comparable to developed nations…

Yep that’s a fair point, the tax burden in India in general is pretty skewed, however worth noting that Mumbai pays a fairly significant amount of it (especially when factoring in indirect and non income taxes). Iirc BMC’s budget is very directly from taxes (very little/no loans or other handouts, though I could be wrong about this).

(Edit: quick googling shows property tax to be the biggest current revenue stream since octroi has gone away after the introduction of a national GST.)

Re: The Ruin of Mumbai

#19

Post by gedy »

anon291 wrote: post #15

I have never lived in Bombay, but my parents grew up there, and our family history there goes back to before it was even a city. Indians have an insatiable appetite for centralized economic planning that has done nothing but hurt the country. For me, it's inexplicable, but it's often like trying to talk at a wall. It makes American NIMBY's look like transit advocates. And for all the fascination with bureaucracy, the…

> And for all the fascination with bureaucracy, the bureaucracy is never efficient

Isn't that perhaps the point? Corruption allows everyone to get their hand in the till for money, power, etc. Maybe this drives the "central planning" so that the elites get their graft too.

Re: The Ruin of Mumbai

#20

Post by addicted »

anon291 wrote: post #15

I have never lived in Bombay, but my parents grew up there, and our family history there goes back to before it was even a city. Indians have an insatiable appetite for centralized economic planning that has done nothing but hurt the country. For me, it's inexplicable, but it's often like trying to talk at a wall. It makes American NIMBY's look like transit advocates. And for all the fascination with bureaucracy, the…

This comment is almost entirely ahistorical.

India as a country is about 75 years old. It’s ridiculously young.

India is the largest democracy in the world despite having half as many official languages as American states, and an order of magnitude more spoken languages, cultures and religions.

Despite this India has remained a largely integral state, has seen authoritarian rule and seen it off in a few years, unlike nearly every other democracy formed around the same time has never been ruled by the military for even a moment.

The greatest economic miracle in the history of human civilization, the growth of China was a product of almost complete central planning to the point that the state also coercively controlled the number of kids you could have. Central planning is clearly no barrier to growth.

India, on the other hand has a highly federal system of government. Arguably the last few years have seen a lot more top down management but that’s a result of the party in federal government also being in power in most state governments.

The current debate playing out in the world is the exact opposite of what you’re claiming. China’s success has made central planning and authoritarianism appear highly desirable. India’s slower growth has made it appear that federalism and democracy are not popular.

However, as the pandemic is showing, when authoritarians mess up they tend to cause irreparable harm whereas democracies are able to absorb a lot more hits.

Your vision of India is a mirror house vision of a 50 year old India at best.

(Btw, even the court and municipal problems you’re referring to is clearly not cultural. India’s slow legal system is very clearly a result of sticking to an antiquated British system and not modernizing it to allow, for example, out of court settlements, which has led to massive backlogs that are now being addressed.

And in terms of municipal actions the Indian state is addressing those issues to the point where there are many functions where the Indian equivalent are significantly faster than the U.S. Try getting a passport in the U.S. today vs India.

Try making payments. India is far ahead of the U.S. which is frankly shocking considering the massive head start the U.S. has here.

Try IDs. While Apple is celebrating something like 4 states doing a pilot system of digital IDs which hasn’t even grown in the 5 years or so, nearly every municipal ID in India today is digital.

Most civil functions can now be done online.

India has also drastically improved government distributions. While the US government was sending literal checks through the mail over COVID Indian monetary benefits are now directly deposited in a bank account.

Post reply on HN