US Politics

[Johnny]

We manage solid public transport in Sweden while being very very spread out.

And with obscene amounts of snow, I might add.

[TheMightyEthan]

Population density of Sweden: 53.8/sq mi

 

Population density of Kansas: 35.1/sq mi

[Johnny]

Population density of Norrbotten County, where I live: 6.5/sq mi

[deanb]

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.

And fuck the poor right? And I assume your $2000 car runs on fairy dust* and is insured with monopoly money**?

 

Over here rail pretty much equals trains since there's really only the underground as far as subways go. We also don't put trams to work on national travel, they're pretty much just used in a few towns. Like Blackpool had a system going up n down the beach front. (Or Manchester since that's the example Wiki use)

 

Yes cost go up, rather astronomically in the "cheaper" US. Also all of them are dipping at the end, reducing in overall GDP spend, except US and Canada. Also I'm sure we've covered this before but our choices aren't limited. Yes you don't have a choice with the NHS, you're going to be covered by NHS whether you want it or not, but you do have private healthcare as an option. In the US the choice is no healthcare, or expensive insurance and/or bankruptcy. Sounds like a fun choice. Also Switzerland, which comes second in spending on that list, has a system similar to what I think the US is moving onto/is on now with the whole "you must buy health insurance" thing, just their spending isn't as high as the US. Surely if the capitalistic system of a variety of insurers and hospitals vying for a patients custom is meant to reduce cost, then why is the graph showing the opposite?

 

Also I guess while we're doing this: US at large = 32/km² (that's 83/mi²⁾

 

 

*I'd have used "fairy liquid" here but it's a brand of washing up liquid here so reads kinda funny even though you can't run an engine on dust.

**as in the board game not the business position.

[Battra92]

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.

 

Exactly. I personally view having to use public transport as a sign that people live on top of each other. Plus, and this is the snobby side of me living in a rural area, I like my space. My wife could live in a cul-de-sac while I would go nuts due to the lack of privacy. Give me some space and my own car (mine is five years old with 90K miles on it but it's paid off!) and I'm happy.

 

In fact, 74% of the poor in America (the poverty level line is quite arbitrary as it's not based on location) own a car. Source: Rasmussen I wonder how many of the 26% are elderly and have family members who take them places or live in dense areas and do not need a car. The numbers aren't there so all I can offer is anecdotal evidence.

 

What is considered a "culture" good?

 

The kind that makes yogurt is good.

 

In all seriousness, I think that's highly subjective. I mean, some people might think going to Euro-electro-rave-electronica trash concerts is culture. Me, I prefer silent movies and classical music. Who's to say what's cultured and what isn't?

 

I'd say you're all uncultured for not getting the TZ reference.

[TheMightyEthan]

Okay, yes, someone who has access to private transportation probably has a higher standard of living than someone in a comparable area who has no choice but to use public transportation, I doubt anyone would dispute that.

 

The reason access to public transportation is considered a factor in (not a determination of) standard of living is because people who lack access to private transportation but do have access to public transportation generally have a higher standard of living than those who have access to neither.

 

 

Population density of Norrbotten County, where I live:

6.5/sq mi

 

Population density of Wallace County, Kansas (not where I live): 1.6/sq mi.

 

Where I live is about 30/sq mi.

[TheMightyEthan]

The Wikipedia page on transportation in Norrbotten County makes it sound very very similar to Kansas:

 

The main mode of person travel inside Norrbotten is by car. The roads usually have sparse traffic, except the coastal road E4, which has more dense traffic. The distances are long, e.g. 345 km between Luleå and Kiruna, needing at least 3½ hours by car. The roads have been given relatively high speed limits compared to southern Sweden, usually 100-110 km/h, reducing travel times in this the largest Swedish county.

 

Norrbotten has a railway network with sparse passenger traffic but dense and heavy freight traffic. There are two main railways. Stambanan genom övre Norrland connects Norrbotten with central and southern Sweden. Malmbanan connects Luleå with the iron mines in Gällivare and Kiruna and the ice-free port of Narvik. Malmbanan has highest amount of freight traffic in Scandinavia, especially the part between Kiruna and Narvik.

 

Air travel is the main mode of travel between Norrbotten and southern Sweden. The main airport is Luleå Airport, 6th largest in Sweden. Other airports are Arvidsjaur Airport, Gällivare Airport, Kiruna Airport and Pajala Airport.

 

Sounds the same right down to the speed limits, distances involved, and prevalence of freight trains but lack of passenger trains.

[Yantelope V2]

@Dean: your "choice" is more or less paying in a ton of taxes or paying in a ton of taxes and buying expensive healthcare right?

[Johnny]

There is not a lack of passenger trains; there isn't an extreme abundance of them, but there isn't less than there is demand for.

There are an awful lot of passenger busses going between towns as well. That's how most people who don't have a car travel. I prefer the train - mainly because nobody else does. Much less crowded.

I have never experienced that getting between towns is a significant problem. You can show up when a bus is leaving and get a ticket.

 

People here love their cars, but you can get by without them.

[Mal]

The reason access to public transportation is considered a factor in (not a determination of) standard of living is because people who lack access to private transportation but do have access to public transportation generally have a higher standard of living than those who have access to neither.

Case in point:

Factor in how many people live in or around urban areas. For the United States, about 3/4 of the population is in or around urban areas. Urban could mean anything from NYC to some place like where I live, San Luis Obispo. Ignoring NYC for now... The local, regional and state public transportation for sure raise the standard of living of the SLO area. We got a bus system (SLO Transit) that cover more or less the whole city/town. We also got buses (RTA) that go in between towns that a good deal of folks use. Lastly, Amtrak trains shoot up to the Bay Area and down to the LA/San Diego. There is also a decent bike infrastructure in place in SLO that I use daily.

 

That to me is a good mix of public and personal transportation systems. It also makes clear to me why public transportation is factored. Does it scale well into a city like NYC? Maybe not but the infrastructures there are in piss poor condition but still it somehow works. It still improves living standards no matter how shitty it is.

 

Disclosure: I currently am living in SLO so what I said about it is from my observation and first hand experience. I also lived in NYC, Denver/Littleton and San Francisco.

 

Denver/Littleton is a urban and suburban sprawl with a budding public transportation system. You're more or less trapped without a car there. When I left, the light rail system use was growing. They sure come in handy for sporting events downtown. Still need to drive a car to the stations though...

[deanb]

@Dean: your "choice" is more or less paying in a ton of taxes or paying in a ton of taxes and buying expensive healthcare right?

Unless you're on low income or unemployed in which case you pay few/no taxes and still get covered with the same amount of healthcare as everyone else. Whereas you guys pay little and get little back. Health shouldn't be a choice of to have it or not, it should be a choice of if you're fine with the state level stuff or if you want to pay extra and get a cushy room and bumped up waiting lists. Same as education; every child gets a free educations from nursery right up to further education (and sorta higher education too), but if you wish to pay more the choice is there for alternative schools to the state schools. There are basic needs of society and the government covers that as they should do.

 

The whole "eww, poor people!" attitude is fucking gross.

[Yantelope V2]

The whole "eww, poor people!" attitude is fucking gross.

 

I don't understand where you're getting this from.

[Battra92]

The whole "eww, poor people!" attitude is fucking gross.

 

I don't understand where you're getting this from.

 

Conservatives who oppose Big Government programs hate the poor and think they should eat catfood and die. At least that's what the talking point the left always pulls out.

 

It's an argument based on emotion without any facts or evidence to back it up.

[TheMightyEthan]

It's based on the fact that the right always seems to oppose government programs to help them have food and not die.

[TheMightyEthan]

[Yantelope V2]

I think that's pretty unfair. Nobody is advocating the elimination of medicare or public schools or public transportation or anything of the such. What conservatives are opposing is the unstoppable expansion of those programs.

[Johnny]

The whole "eww, poor people!" attitude is fucking gross.

 

I don't understand where you're getting this from.

 

The whole last two pages or so where you and Battra have been talking like quality of life measurements are shit because they factor in people with less money than you.

[deanb]

The whole "eww, poor people!" attitude is fucking gross.

I don't understand where you're getting this from.

From a lifetime of being raised in a society where sharing is caring. Pull through it together n such. The whole "Well I'm fine so why should I care if others are struggling?" attitude is selfish and shitty and bound to change once fortunes do. Not wanting public transport around because if you need it then clearly you're very poor. Damn can't even afford to buy a car, what a waste of space eh? Do you guys not even pause to dwell upon what you're saying? Do you not feel a little bit cold and cruel? Do you not put yourself in other peoples shoes?

 

 

@Battra: You know I'm british right? Just something I figured was hugely obvious. We don't have your whole two party set-up of "one or the other" and your left n right are not our left n right. Using american political terms directed at myself is a bit pointless.

As for no evidence or facts; I live in a goddamn socialised nation. I have been helped on many occasions through my life, from my emergency c-section birth through to my recent unemployment. I currently go into work via one of the many many buses serving the local area or (more often) along the cycling path running up n down the nation. Without these services in place many peoples lives up and down the nation would be so much harder. Because I know you guys probably can put a number on it: How much would my birth have been? Emergency caesarean with a few weeks of intensive care. I'm figuring $20K and up. Not exactly a sum a new mum would really have on hand. But thankfully I live in a nation where that's not an issue, children are not brought into indebted homes. Then there's my glasses since I was 12. The dog bite at 14. Thankfully I seem to be immune to the cold so that's not an annual issue. Though there's also the full round of jabs we get. Oh my sprained wrist at 14 too. My childhood could have potentially put my mother nearly 50K in date, that's a huge amount. And that's just the NHS stuff. Which yes it means that this cost of my existence in the world and childhood is paid for by society. At around the cost of roughly 0.0003p/person/year. Which personally(I know, bit biased) is a pretty fucking good deal for the UK. And I just put a price on my own head. How grim.

[Yantelope V2]

The whole "eww, poor people!" attitude is fucking gross.

 

I don't understand where you're getting this from.

 

The whole last two pages or so where you and Battra have been talking like quality of life measurements are shit because they factor in people with less money than you.

 

 

Could you have missed the point more entirely? I had nothing to do with factoring in poor people. It has to do with factors like "public transportation" have no effect on the lives of a vast majority of people in many areas.

[Yantelope V2]

From a lifetime of being raised in a society where sharing is caring. Pull through it together n such. The whole "Well I'm fine so why should I care if others are struggling?" attitude is selfish and shitty and bound to change once fortunes do. Not wanting public transport around because if you need it then clearly you're very poor. Damn can't even afford to buy a car, what a waste of space eh? Do you guys not even pause to dwell upon what you're saying? Do you not feel a little bit cold and cruel? Do you not put yourself in other peoples shoes?

 

You're pretty much showing just how closed and biased you really are right here. I am not against public transportation at all. I never said I was against it. I said rail systems were expensive and inefficient for large suburban areas. I never said I don't care about the people struggling around me and I didn't say screw the poor. We already have programs for all these things and i don't think those programs should go away.

 

What is so telling is how you make the automatic assumption that if someone doesn't want a universal health care system he's a cold hearted jerk who cares nothing for those around them. We're not even talking about the poor here. Do you not realize that a universal healthcare system actually has nothing to do with the poor? What it does have to do with is if you do have money and still don't buy health insurance then that's your right. People should have the right to be stupid with their money and they should have the right to waste it if they want. It's about freedom for those who do have money.

[deanb]

The whole "eww, poor people!" attitude is fucking gross.

I don't understand where you're getting this from.

The whole last two pages or so where you and Battra have been talking like quality of life measurements are shit because they factor in people with less money than you.

Could you have missed the point more entirely? I had nothing to do with factoring in poor people. It has to do with factors like "public transportation" have no effect on the lives of a vast majority of people in many areas.

aka "Well most of us are fine, so why bother with those that aren't?". The standard, aka the "bare expected minimum" is not "what most folks have". Hence stuff like public transport, which helps with those unable to afford a car of their own, being counted in as a factor of standard of living. If public transport is not there, and thus those unable to afford a car, then the standard of living is lower than those living elsewhere. The whole point of standard of living stuff is not "how well are those well off able to live?" cos that'd be pointless. That's not a standard, that's a mean. It's a bit of a no brainer that if you're well off then you're well off and thus can afford more things. But if you're not well off, well then what is the standard of living you'd still receive? Will you be able to eat, to travel, to be healthy?

 

edit: And as someone self-defined as being a-okay financially you're not biased yourself? And you n battra have been less than enthused on the idea of public transport, sure battra more so than you. And no you've not directly outright said "screw the poor" but you have made many remarks about how you're fine, and with transport and health and such so why do other people count? Why count in the poor people when talking about quality of life? Your quality is fine, surely that's all that matter. Poor people are poor, of course they'll have a crappy life. Except if folks were to grow a slither of heart you'd be like "oh wait, that's not how it has to be". And how the hell does universal health have nothing to do with the poor? Or would you be wanting a universal health scheme where only those with jobs and thus a direct benefit to society to be able to make use of it? Cos that's not really the point of a national health scheme. It's of benefit to all, the poor to the rich. People still have the right to pay for more of a health scheme, but people should also have the right to health care no matter their circumstances and not be afraid of the repercussions of seeking medical assistance.

[Thursday Next]

[Yantelope V2]

@Dean, if you live in a city, take for an example, Highland park, where everyone there pretty much owns $500,000 houses then if there is no public transportation system then it has literally no effect on the quality of life in that city and it would be in error to assign a super rich city like that a lower score for not having a public transportation system.

 

http://en.wikipedia....and_Park,_Texas

 

"For instance, in December 2010 the average price of a home on the market in Highland Park was $1,202,369"

 

Edit: they do have public transport there, I'm just saying that if they didn't it probably would make zero difference to the people living there.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Yantelope V2

[Johnny]

 

 

Could you have missed the point more entirely? I had nothing to do with factoring in poor people. It has to do with factors like "public transportation" have no effect on the lives of a vast majority of people in many areas.

 

You're the one missing the point. The point is, you have to factor in public transportation because it greatly affects the lives of all the people who don't own a car. That is, mostly people who can't afford one.

 

Saying that it doesn't count because it doesn't affect the majority of people in "many areas" is dismissing the poor as not a factor. There is no difference between the two.

[Yantelope V2]

Example A: City A has an average income of one million dollars, everyone owns houses and their own cars and their own health insurance and they pay for everything themselves. There is no public transport, healthcare or food stamps available.

 

Example B: City B has an average income of $1, nobody has any money but they all have access to public transport, state provided healthcare and access to food stamps and such.

 

 

According to the metrics you can drum up you could "calculate" that City B has higher quality of life. That's my point. It's an extreme example but I'm just saying "quality of life" can be calculated however you want.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Yantelope V2