3 ms·

Now consider the area over which Canada must provide services, and the intrinsic inefficiency that entails..

Paul-Craft 3y ago
Are you perhaps not aware that most Canadians live south of Seattle, and 90% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the US border? https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/canadians-south-seattle-mental-map-surprise/ https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/canadians-south-seattle-me...
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  Yet the Canadian government provides services across Canada in huge areas with extremely low population densities. This is incredibly inefficient, which is the point.
  - Paul-Craft 3y ago
    What is your solution, then, O wise one? If you're going to say it's "inefficient," then I ask: inefficient compared to what?
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      A solution to what? The Canadian government runs very efficiently when you consider their geographic handicap. The UK on the other hand has a serious problem with bureaucratic inefficiency. Their geography favors efficient services, yet they can't do better than Canada? That's a problem.
      - ipaddr 3y ago
        The money/effort wasted by the Canadian government is at an all time high level. Canada just spent their total debt 200 billion in one year doubling it. They still keep spending into debt. Remember We and the billion lost? Don't go around bragging. It's a national shame.
  - gruez 3y ago
    > This is incredibly inefficient, which is the point. That's true in the abstract, but it's not important/significant enough to consider. The costliest services for the government to provide (welfare, healthcare, education) grow in proportion to population, not area. A rural hospital or school might spend more on ambulances or school buses respectively, but those additional costs aren't anywhere near the top in terms of expenses.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      Education and healthcare are more expensive to provide over huge areas with low population density. Particularly with healthcare, the government has to pay professionals to live out there and those professionals serve fewer people than they could in high density areas.
      - gruez 3y ago
        Again, I'm not denying that there's increased costs associated with serving rural populations. I'm just skeptical about the actual scale of such increased costs.
- wozniacki 3y ago
  U.K. does a shoddy job of nearly everything - from wireless connectivity to infrastructure to healthcare dispensation - compared to even similar sized advanced economies. Just take broadband / wireless connectivity. Outside of London / S.E. England, the rest of the country has shoddier coverage than places like Thailand! Twitch streamers who have tried to livestream their exploits outside of London were met with spotty coverage at best. You can go watch the VODs yourself. Its unbearably bad even with the aid of cellular-bonding equipment ( multi-SIM multi-data plan fused to provide better signal ). Whereas in similarly sized places like South Korea the same live-streamers have been able to stream the length and breadth of the country with a single SIM data plan, right from their phones without so much as a bitrate drop-off! Large swathes of U.K. are still serviced by those one-lane-each-way thoroughfares you saw over a 50 years ago in films such as Straw Dogs and A Clockwork Orange. My personal gripe - air conditioning is nearly non-existent outside of big box commercial establishments & good non-bed & breakfast hotel chains. ( This is the case across much of Europe - scores of people died in a heat wave in France not so long ago ) [1] The size of South Korea is approximately 99,720 sq km, while the size of the United Kingdom is approximately 243,610 sq km, making the United Kingdom 144% larger than South Korea. The population of South Korea is approximately 51.8 million people, while the population of the United Kingdom is approximately 67.8 million people.
- FredPret 3y ago
  It's a long border. 100 miles (=160km) * 8891km = 1,422,560 km*2. Google says the UK is 250,000 km*2. Your point that Canadians are concentrated into big cities is true. But on the other hand, there are hundreds (thousands? millions?) of small towns all over the place in Canada, and all of the ones I've seen are clean, neat, nice, safe, and shockingly (to me) well-served by infrastructure. (not to say it's perfect; we've all heard of indigenous towns without water).

Are you perhaps not aware that most Canadians live south of Seattle, and 90% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the US border? https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/canadians-south-seattle-mental-map-surprise/ https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/canadians-south-seattle-me...

mcpackieh 3y ago
Yet the Canadian government provides services across Canada in huge areas with extremely low population densities. This is incredibly inefficient, which is the point.
- Paul-Craft 3y ago
  What is your solution, then, O wise one? If you're going to say it's "inefficient," then I ask: inefficient compared to what?
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    A solution to what? The Canadian government runs very efficiently when you consider their geographic handicap. The UK on the other hand has a serious problem with bureaucratic inefficiency. Their geography favors efficient services, yet they can't do better than Canada? That's a problem.
    - ipaddr 3y ago
      The money/effort wasted by the Canadian government is at an all time high level. Canada just spent their total debt 200 billion in one year doubling it. They still keep spending into debt. Remember We and the billion lost? Don't go around bragging. It's a national shame.
- gruez 3y ago
  > This is incredibly inefficient, which is the point. That's true in the abstract, but it's not important/significant enough to consider. The costliest services for the government to provide (welfare, healthcare, education) grow in proportion to population, not area. A rural hospital or school might spend more on ambulances or school buses respectively, but those additional costs aren't anywhere near the top in terms of expenses.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    Education and healthcare are more expensive to provide over huge areas with low population density. Particularly with healthcare, the government has to pay professionals to live out there and those professionals serve fewer people than they could in high density areas.
    - gruez 3y ago
      Again, I'm not denying that there's increased costs associated with serving rural populations. I'm just skeptical about the actual scale of such increased costs.
wozniacki 3y ago
U.K. does a shoddy job of nearly everything - from wireless connectivity to infrastructure to healthcare dispensation - compared to even similar sized advanced economies. Just take broadband / wireless connectivity. Outside of London / S.E. England, the rest of the country has shoddier coverage than places like Thailand! Twitch streamers who have tried to livestream their exploits outside of London were met with spotty coverage at best. You can go watch the VODs yourself. Its unbearably bad even with the aid of cellular-bonding equipment ( multi-SIM multi-data plan fused to provide better signal ). Whereas in similarly sized places like South Korea the same live-streamers have been able to stream the length and breadth of the country with a single SIM data plan, right from their phones without so much as a bitrate drop-off! Large swathes of U.K. are still serviced by those one-lane-each-way thoroughfares you saw over a 50 years ago in films such as Straw Dogs and A Clockwork Orange. My personal gripe - air conditioning is nearly non-existent outside of big box commercial establishments & good non-bed & breakfast hotel chains. ( This is the case across much of Europe - scores of people died in a heat wave in France not so long ago ) [1] The size of South Korea is approximately 99,720 sq km, while the size of the United Kingdom is approximately 243,610 sq km, making the United Kingdom 144% larger than South Korea. The population of South Korea is approximately 51.8 million people, while the population of the United Kingdom is approximately 67.8 million people.
FredPret 3y ago
It's a long border. 100 miles (=160km) * 8891km = 1,422,560 km*2. Google says the UK is 250,000 km*2. Your point that Canadians are concentrated into big cities is true. But on the other hand, there are hundreds (thousands? millions?) of small towns all over the place in Canada, and all of the ones I've seen are clean, neat, nice, safe, and shockingly (to me) well-served by infrastructure. (not to say it's perfect; we've all heard of indigenous towns without water).