It's an issue of scale: in a smaller town, you can run into carolers (or subway acrobats, or churro ladies) rarely enough, and under high trust circumstances, that it's not an uncomfortable experience. In New York, where you get harassed by them multiple times a day, it degrades your daily life and things would be better for their potential customers if they stopped.
(You can argue that things would be worse for the performers if they stopped. But if you run a business that makes life worse on net for the people paying you, I think it's reasonable to say that your business is bad and shouldn't exist).
> They prefer to visit or live in places where those elements have been excised—which is probably to say, where the people who need recourse to them have been excluded.
I don't think these two things correspond at all. Most people (including poor people) don't harass subway goers. Excluding those options doesn't mean destroying anyone who resorts to them, just like banning theft doesn't mean all thieves starve to death. And most people who oppose subway acrobats and the like do support enabling or supporting unemployed people in other ways.
Entrepreneurship ends where regulations start. I worked as an administrative law judge for NYC agencies that deal with things like street vending and restaurant inspections, and when you get very familiar with the rules, you realize there's a reason for all of those rules. Occasionally you come across one that's outdated, but most of the time you find that the rules really are there to protect the general public. The churro lady? Nope. There are strict rules about what you can and can't sell without a permit, and even places with cottage industry schemes have sanitation requirements. Churro lady was just doing whatever she wanted (and got warning after warning after warning and still ignored the rules).
I am reminded of the time Microsoft launched a new product with an ad campaign that consisted of large hard-to-remove stickers affixed to the sidewalks of Manhattan. They were fined, and when they complained, they said it was just too difficult to figure out how to get a permit for that kind of campaign. The city (patiently) explained to them that the reason it was so difficult is because you CAN'T get a permit for that sort of activity. It's prohibited. And for good reasons.
For those trying to excuse bad behavior as "entrepreneurial", or "criminalizing poverty", keep in mind that for every churro lady flouting the law, there are plenty of hard-working low-skilled immigrants who are complying with the law. One of the latest signs of decay on the subway, hand in hand with the flood of "migrants" (i.e. illegal immigrants): women selling candy on the subway with their small children in tow, either an infant strapped to their backs or pre-school aged children barely supervised selling candy on their own. It has a third world vibe. There's a reason that their are laws against this. Please don't romanticize it.
I was recently in New Delhi and used that city's metro system, and it's so disheartening that theirs is more clean, genteel, and civilized than New York City's. Despite it being a third-world city, there are no beggars, illegal vendors, drug addicts, etc. None of that is true of New York, and it's especially not true of Philadelphia (where I live).
And I admit that I find it particularly grating that it's mostly immigrants. Even if churro ladies aren't particularly hurting anyone, it's awful behavior to move to someone else's country and break the laws and customs of your hosts.
Fwiw I actively like the subway acrobats, and haven't seen them get close to physical contact with other riders. The most unwanted interaction I have with other passengers is always flirting. Most guys will take no for an answer, but a) you do always worry that this one won't, and b) I was trying to read!!! That said, I try to be laid-back about it, and as with basically all of the more economic pursuits you're talking about here, I do think life is a little bleaker and duller when people don't feel free to do it. On some level I think having a lot of these interactions has built my social trust, because I have them and I realize, okay, most people in this city, including most guys who flirt on the bus, are fine.
I like the living-room metaphor. The city is messy because we are; there's something missing in a more pristine environment, at least to me. I'm sure people's feelings here also depend on what they're used to, what their worst past experience has been (i.e. what they're afraid will happen--a violent beggar? a violent arrest of a person just trying to get by? actual sexual harassment?), etc.
I think I would be much more tolerant of the churro lady than the subway acrobats. When I'm on the train I am a captive audience and don't want to be guilted into giving them money as I'm trying to get to my destination. The churro lady is easy enough to walk by, maybe I'd feel differently if I had kids. When I was in NYC last summer, the fruit stands were nice to see even if I didn't buy anything from them; they never heckled me while leaving the subway for not purchasing anything.
When one is traveling between stations in an aluminum tube, one is indeed a captive audience. It's not dissimilar from being on an airplane. I haven less objection to platform performers or vendors as I have the option of ignoring them or walking away.
Dense urban or transportation environments require a high level of trust and comfort as a necessary component of widespread usage. In a situation in which access to safety is difficult, you must minimize any behavior that can potentially morph into a threat. Under that rubric, I would ban almost any in train activity that would negatively impact the safety or comfort of other riders. This would include, eating, drinking, audible music, panhandling, vending, speeches, performance artists, etc.
I know this might seem harsh, but I firmly believe that, strict rules of comportment in captive environments is a necessary component of dense, thriving, multicultural urban communities.
Subway acrobats seem extreme, to me. Once in the subway I was treated to a barbershop quartet movbing from car to car. They had amazing voices and I gave them some money.
I've grown more irritated by performers on train lines the longer I've lived in a city. I'm on the train to get someplace and I don't want to be a captive audience for someone trying to get money. I'm not sure how they could do acrobatics in such a tight space either.
That said they're still better than the people who get on the train with speakers so loud I can hear them over my headphones
For me the acrobats are wayyyyyy over the line because people on the train are a captive audience. And demanding money from people who maybe didn't even want to watch you but had no choice is a d**k move. Far different from buskers where if you don't want to leave a tip you can simply not avail yourself of their performance.
Similarly, churro ladies wouldn't bother me unless they were following me around.
It's an issue of scale: in a smaller town, you can run into carolers (or subway acrobats, or churro ladies) rarely enough, and under high trust circumstances, that it's not an uncomfortable experience. In New York, where you get harassed by them multiple times a day, it degrades your daily life and things would be better for their potential customers if they stopped.
(You can argue that things would be worse for the performers if they stopped. But if you run a business that makes life worse on net for the people paying you, I think it's reasonable to say that your business is bad and shouldn't exist).
> They prefer to visit or live in places where those elements have been excised—which is probably to say, where the people who need recourse to them have been excluded.
I don't think these two things correspond at all. Most people (including poor people) don't harass subway goers. Excluding those options doesn't mean destroying anyone who resorts to them, just like banning theft doesn't mean all thieves starve to death. And most people who oppose subway acrobats and the like do support enabling or supporting unemployed people in other ways.
Entrepreneurship ends where regulations start. I worked as an administrative law judge for NYC agencies that deal with things like street vending and restaurant inspections, and when you get very familiar with the rules, you realize there's a reason for all of those rules. Occasionally you come across one that's outdated, but most of the time you find that the rules really are there to protect the general public. The churro lady? Nope. There are strict rules about what you can and can't sell without a permit, and even places with cottage industry schemes have sanitation requirements. Churro lady was just doing whatever she wanted (and got warning after warning after warning and still ignored the rules).
I am reminded of the time Microsoft launched a new product with an ad campaign that consisted of large hard-to-remove stickers affixed to the sidewalks of Manhattan. They were fined, and when they complained, they said it was just too difficult to figure out how to get a permit for that kind of campaign. The city (patiently) explained to them that the reason it was so difficult is because you CAN'T get a permit for that sort of activity. It's prohibited. And for good reasons.
For those trying to excuse bad behavior as "entrepreneurial", or "criminalizing poverty", keep in mind that for every churro lady flouting the law, there are plenty of hard-working low-skilled immigrants who are complying with the law. One of the latest signs of decay on the subway, hand in hand with the flood of "migrants" (i.e. illegal immigrants): women selling candy on the subway with their small children in tow, either an infant strapped to their backs or pre-school aged children barely supervised selling candy on their own. It has a third world vibe. There's a reason that their are laws against this. Please don't romanticize it.
I was recently in New Delhi and used that city's metro system, and it's so disheartening that theirs is more clean, genteel, and civilized than New York City's. Despite it being a third-world city, there are no beggars, illegal vendors, drug addicts, etc. None of that is true of New York, and it's especially not true of Philadelphia (where I live).
And I admit that I find it particularly grating that it's mostly immigrants. Even if churro ladies aren't particularly hurting anyone, it's awful behavior to move to someone else's country and break the laws and customs of your hosts.
Fwiw I actively like the subway acrobats, and haven't seen them get close to physical contact with other riders. The most unwanted interaction I have with other passengers is always flirting. Most guys will take no for an answer, but a) you do always worry that this one won't, and b) I was trying to read!!! That said, I try to be laid-back about it, and as with basically all of the more economic pursuits you're talking about here, I do think life is a little bleaker and duller when people don't feel free to do it. On some level I think having a lot of these interactions has built my social trust, because I have them and I realize, okay, most people in this city, including most guys who flirt on the bus, are fine.
I like the living-room metaphor. The city is messy because we are; there's something missing in a more pristine environment, at least to me. I'm sure people's feelings here also depend on what they're used to, what their worst past experience has been (i.e. what they're afraid will happen--a violent beggar? a violent arrest of a person just trying to get by? actual sexual harassment?), etc.
I think I would be much more tolerant of the churro lady than the subway acrobats. When I'm on the train I am a captive audience and don't want to be guilted into giving them money as I'm trying to get to my destination. The churro lady is easy enough to walk by, maybe I'd feel differently if I had kids. When I was in NYC last summer, the fruit stands were nice to see even if I didn't buy anything from them; they never heckled me while leaving the subway for not purchasing anything.
I agree with this sentiment.
When one is traveling between stations in an aluminum tube, one is indeed a captive audience. It's not dissimilar from being on an airplane. I haven less objection to platform performers or vendors as I have the option of ignoring them or walking away.
Dense urban or transportation environments require a high level of trust and comfort as a necessary component of widespread usage. In a situation in which access to safety is difficult, you must minimize any behavior that can potentially morph into a threat. Under that rubric, I would ban almost any in train activity that would negatively impact the safety or comfort of other riders. This would include, eating, drinking, audible music, panhandling, vending, speeches, performance artists, etc.
I know this might seem harsh, but I firmly believe that, strict rules of comportment in captive environments is a necessary component of dense, thriving, multicultural urban communities.
Subway acrobats seem extreme, to me. Once in the subway I was treated to a barbershop quartet movbing from car to car. They had amazing voices and I gave them some money.
Kevin Williamson had an interesting article on something similar to the "Churro Lady" phenomenon in National Review a few years ago. https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2010/02/08/keeping-blacks-poor/
I've grown more irritated by performers on train lines the longer I've lived in a city. I'm on the train to get someplace and I don't want to be a captive audience for someone trying to get money. I'm not sure how they could do acrobatics in such a tight space either.
That said they're still better than the people who get on the train with speakers so loud I can hear them over my headphones
For me the acrobats are wayyyyyy over the line because people on the train are a captive audience. And demanding money from people who maybe didn't even want to watch you but had no choice is a d**k move. Far different from buskers where if you don't want to leave a tip you can simply not avail yourself of their performance.
Similarly, churro ladies wouldn't bother me unless they were following me around.