3 ms·
Yet the Canadian government provides services across Canada in huge areas with extremely low population densities. This is incredibly inefficient, which is the
by 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 agoWhat 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 agoA 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 agoThe 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 agoEducation 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 agoAgain, 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.