US Politics

[Yantelope V2]

How you actually measure,compare and add a numerical value all of those things gets a bit messy.

 

Edit: What I mean is who decides "affordable or free (misnomer) access to healthcare" and how do they balance that with the other factors. If you think socialized medicine is great you can crank the value of that way up and skew the "standard of living".

 

Another interesting thing I've just been reading about is Purchasing Power Parity. Interesting.

 

http://en.wikipedia....PPP)_per_capita

 

Johnny, didn't you say videogames are crazy expensive in Sweden in the piracy thread?

 

I'm learning so much now. Clearly Sweden is inferior because they are way behind on the big mac index.

 

http://upload.wikime...SD_2columns.png

 

I wonder how the size of the GDP affects the cost of the programs in terms of administration and such. Sweden's GDP(PPP) is 2.5% of the US.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Yantelope V2

[Battra92]

Standard of living is kind of a subjective measure depending upon who's defining it.

 

Indeed. I've seen bologna like "Access to public transportation" listed as part of the standard of living in some of those surveys. To me, having to use Public transport is a sign of low standard of living. Don't get me wrong, the Underground was alright as is the T in Boston but if I had to take them every day I'd be pretty annoyed.

 

I think I have a pretty decent standard of living. I live on almost an acre of land in a decent house (that does need some repairs but I'm working on it.) I work a good job where I don't work slave hours. Up until I bought the house I had no debt. I can go to whichever church I wish (there's literally dozens within 5 miles of my house of varying faiths) and there's food in abundance whether I go to the local grocery stores (there are 3 in my city) or I go to the farmer's market or straight to one of the many local farms.

 

I have a good life so I really couldn't care less what some statistician claims is the standard of living. Maybe because there isn't a train or bus station nearby or because *gasp* I have to pay for my own medical insurance I live a shitty life according to him. Meh, whatever!

[TheMightyEthan]

You have a good life ergo everyone in the United States has a good life and nothing at all needs to be changed. Right.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

To me, having to use Public transport is a sign of low standard of living.

 

Well this is the most ignorant thing I've read all day.

[Battra92]

You have a good life ergo everyone in the United States has a good life and nothing at all needs to be changed. Right.

 

 

It's a VERY good life.

[Yantelope V2]

To me, having to use Public transport is a sign of low standard of living.

 

Well this is the most ignorant thing I've read all day.

 

Not really, which do you prefer, to ride on a bus or to drive your own car? There's tons of areas in Texas with no public transportation. That doesn't mean everyone is broke. Most of those rural areas people have lots of land and nice trucks.

[Johnny]

Battra, discussing national standards of living is about the entire country, not your individual living situation...

 

 

Yantelope: Oh god, where the fuck do I begin with this one.

 

I'm learning so much now. Clearly Sweden is inferior because they are way behind on the big mac index.

 

Quite. Let's take a closer look at this big mac index and compare some other countries to the US.

 

 

India: 272 % more well off.

Ukraine, Hong Kong: 209% more well off.

China, South Africa, Indonesia, Thailand, Thaiwan: 181% more well off.

 

Man, the US fucking sucks.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

To me, having to use Public transport is a sign of low standard of living.

 

Well this is the most ignorant thing I've read all day.

 

Not really, which do you prefer, to ride on a bus or to drive your own car? There's tons of areas in Texas with no public transportation. That doesn't mean everyone is broke. Most of those rural areas people have lots of land and nice trucks.

 

Yes, because your life is everyone else's life in the world.

[Johnny]

The point with public transportation is that it improves the standard of living IMMENSELY for the people who don't have steady access to a private form of transport such as a car.

That it usually doesn't matter much for the people who do has nothing to do with it.

 

In case you didn't know, people who aren't white upper middle class families do count as well.

[Luftwaffles]

To me, having to use Public transport is a sign of low standard of living.

 

Well this is the most ignorant thing I've read all day.

 

Not really, which do you prefer, to ride on a bus or to drive your own car? There's tons of areas in Texas with no public transportation. That doesn't mean everyone is broke. Most of those rural areas people have lots of land and nice trucks.

 

Hate to break it to you, but those areas without public transportation would probably be pretty shitty places to grow up. I can't tell you how boring my high school years would have been without public transportation, and that's coming from someone who lives in a rural area with 3-4 buses coming home each day.

 

EDIT: I'm just trying to say there's more to public transportation than "poor people use it".

Edited May 16, 2012 by Sporkwaffles

[Yantelope V2]

We're not arguing over whether or not public transportation is a good or a bad thing. We're discussing the fact that directly equating access to public transportation to standard of living is not a good metric because like you said, not everyone is a rich white guy and not everyone is poor. So really you're making the same point we are that assigning a value to public transportation and saying that provides better standard of living isn't necessarily true.

 

Where is India getting all the meat for their Big Macs to be so cheap? I thought it was illegal to be killing all those cows over there.

 

Also, I'm going to have to do some digging but just based on these early numbers and stuff I'm pulling up it just seems that people in Sweden have less spending money and are okay with that. I suppose we could do what they do and double everyone's taxes here in America but I'd personally prefer to spend my own money.

[Johnny]

@Yantelope: Regarding purchasing power parity and leftist ideas: We do have high taxes, particularly a 25% sales tax on most non-food, non-culture, non-public transport goods. That's why things cost what they do.

You might find that to be terrible, but as someone living here I am a big fan of many of the things those higher taxes buys us. Sure, someone making 40 grand a year won't be able to buy as many luxury goods here as they would elsewhere, but life is so much easier for those of us who don't have as much when you've got things like affordable healthcare.

[Yantelope V2]

What is considered a "culture" good?

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

We're discussing the fact that directly equating access to public transportation to standard of living is not a good metric because like you said, not everyone is a rich white guy and not everyone is poor. So really you're making the same point we are that assigning a value to public transportation and saying that provides better standard of living isn't necessarily true.

 

Everyone having access to transportation isn't a good metric? Do you really lack the ability to see other perspectives to such a large degree? If a country has a lack of public transportation, and a lack of private transportation, then their standard of living is low. What is so hard to understand about that? Cars also don't indicate a good standard of living. Some countries just can't handle a car for every citizen. It'd be insanity.

[Mister Jack]

If anything, we need MORE public transportation over here. I don't exactly enjoy having to pay 3.80 per gallon of gas.

[Johnny]

What is considered a "culture" good?

 

Concert tickets and the like.

[Yantelope V2]

Well, first off, cost of public transportation isn't all that great. We have light rail in dallas and it's still almost the exact same cost to ride as it is to drive. You only come out ahead if you include "mileage" on your car.

 

Additionally, we're talking about how the standard of living numbers are skewed. Take some of the northern states where there is a lot of land and a small population. If you say that we should have busses running to every single rural house, that's just not practical but it would skew your "standard of living" metrics if you're doing the calculation based on square footage. I don't know how they control for all that.

 

TL:DR, the point is that the public transportation and other similar metrics can skew your average numbers.

[Yantelope V2]

What is considered a "culture" good?

 

Concert tickets and the like.

 

Hmmm, that's interesting.

 

 

Well, in response to your last post. I don't think it's either 50% taxes or no healthcare. I think you can have low taxes and affordable health care. I just don't think you can accomplish it with universal healthcare and big government.

[Johnny]

Yantelope, every metric you include can skew the numbers. The point is to try to include all the relevant metrics to make it as fair as possible.

 

Also, who's gonna pay for making your healthcare affordable, if you don't do it by helping out with tax money?

 

Also, Sweden accomplished it with what you would consider a big government. It's not 100% universal, but it's not far off either.

[Yantelope V2]

Yes, every metric can skew the numbers. That's why I'm trying to provide relevant metrics. I think the point I'm making is your choices are not simply between no spending money and cheap healthcare or tons of spending money and expensive health care. There is a way to have both spending money and cheap healthcare you just have to allow market forces to work.

[Johnny]

Public transportation is HIGHLY relevant for a large portion of the population. Are you disputing this?

 

Also, show me an example of market forces unrestrained creating a situation where healthcare is cheap.

[Yantelope V2]

I know in Texas it's a very insignificant portion of the population who use public transportation. Rail systems are really only practical for tight urban areas. Beyond that it only makes economic sense to have buses and individual cars. Buses are hugely inconvenient in terms of time. Rail systems are hugely expensive and rarely make any sort of fiscal sense. I honestly don't know what the landscape of your hometown is like but living in Texas it's almost a necessity to have your own car because everything is just so spread out.

 

http://maps.google.c...las, Texas&z=11

 

Well, Healthcare in America isn't cheap per say but it's still cheaper than it is in universal systems. Isn't the medical system in India some sort of free market system that's supposed to be doing pretty well? I know the quality of care varies greatly. I need to check on that one some more.

 

 

Update: For further info. Dallas has a huge public transportation system called "DART"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_area_rapid_transit

 

It's ridership is only about 1/10 of the total population that it serves though. I'd hardly call that a large portion of the population.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Yantelope V2

[deanb]

1 in 10 people there use the public transport? And that's bad? So potentially without the public transport system then 10% of the population would be without travel unless they were to invest a huge chunk of cash buying a car (on the assumption they're able to drive; i.e not teens, elderly and handicapped).

Also trains for tight urban areas? Surely you mean buses? Buses work for local areas, and trains for national (or state in your case) travel.

 

Also I thought we already covered where more of your GDP goes towards health than it does over here and yours still has to be backed up with personal health insurance on the tax payers end. which doesn't always end well, see the previous comments on standard of living. People don't go bankrupt on universal health care, they do on the "cheaper" US healthcare though.

 

[TheMightyEthan]

When he said trains I took it to mean light rail like subways.

 

He's right though, at least about public transport being impractical in the midwest. Everything is just way too damn spread out, without enough people in any one area to make it cost effective. The areas that are more densely populated, like Wichita, KC, college towns do tend to have buses.

[Yantelope V2]

Well, a couple of things. First, everyone I know owns at least one car. In Dallas if you don't own a car you're very very poor. A large percentage of that ridership in Dallas is probably commuters who are saving a couple of bucks and leaving their cars parked at home. I wouldn't call a car a large investment in Dallas either because you can usually get a used car in the range of $2,000-4,000 and most people can afford that especially if they can make payments on it.

 

Yeah, typically Rail systems that actually work for public transportation are subways and elevated trains in tight urban areas. Light rails for long distance travel typically cost tons of money and rarely make it back.

 

Again, health care is a complicated issue so I'm not trying to oversimplify it. That graph you show actually highlights the problem quite well really. The costs keep escalating. The only way to actually reduce cost is to expand supply and competition. Eliminating competition and increasing demand is only going to make that number skyrocket further. It's simple economics really. The UK and other countries are actually keeping their costs from rising as quickly by making people wait half a year for referrals and by limiting your medical choices.