3 ms·

I don't get why the US is so bad at infrastructure. All other first-world countries have entrenched bureaucracies, and pork-barrel spending, and environmental

I don't get why the US is so bad at infrastructure. All other first-world countries have entrenched bureaucracies, and pork-barrel spending, and environmental reviews, and zoning, and NIMBY lawsuits, just like the US does. However, those other countries manage to get infrastructure built and maintained anyway. So, given that they face the same challenges the US does, why does the US do so much worse, even though the US has so much more money? Where is the distinction?

karlshea 10y ago
Extreme polarization and obstructionism that turns infrastructure spending into wedge issues (especially around trains)
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
Someone 10y ago
A combination of: 1. US military spending is 1/6 of the federal budget. 2. US population density is low (less than a quarter of that of China, less than a third of that of the EU; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territor...), giving it more mountains, rivers and longer roads. 3. On the scale between "taxation is theft" and "I'm a happy tax-payer", the US population tends more to the first than at least some other countries. US citizens prefer having the money to buy a SUV over having the government build roads. 4. Rich countries have higher wages for everybody, making infrastructure work more expensive relative to the equivalent work in poorer countries (its hard to outsource road works) 5. A bit of imperial overstretch, where new infrastructure gets built without considering the cost of maintaining it (looking at the water situation, is it really a good idea to build out Vegas and Phoenix? Shouldn't Miami be slowly abandoned?) This may be a side-effect of more direct democracy; long-term considerations are trumped by "if I want to keep my job, I can't see 'I'm sorry, we cannot afford that'".
wutbrodo 10y ago
Sparsity, size, diversity, the state/federal dichotomy. All of these affect the way politics play out and are distinctions (to varying degrees) between the US and other first world countries.

karlshea 10y ago

Extreme polarization and obstructionism that turns infrastructure spending into wedge issues (especially around trains)

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

Someone 10y ago

A combination of: 1. US military spending is 1/6 of the federal budget. 2. US population density is low (less than a quarter of that of China, less than a third of that of the EU; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territor...), giving it more mountains, rivers and longer roads. 3. On the scale between "taxation is theft" and "I'm a happy tax-payer", the US population tends more to the first than at least some other countries. US citizens prefer having the money to buy a SUV over having the government build roads. 4. Rich countries have higher wages for everybody, making infrastructure work more expensive relative to the equivalent work in poorer countries (its hard to outsource road works) 5. A bit of imperial overstretch, where new infrastructure gets built without considering the cost of maintaining it (looking at the water situation, is it really a good idea to build out Vegas and Phoenix? Shouldn't Miami be slowly abandoned?) This may be a side-effect of more direct democracy; long-term considerations are trumped by "if I want to keep my job, I can't see 'I'm sorry, we cannot afford that'".

wutbrodo 10y ago

Sparsity, size, diversity, the state/federal dichotomy. All of these affect the way politics play out and are distinctions (to varying degrees) between the US and other first world countries.