4 ms·

This is a great idea, until you remember Finland has a population of about 5 million. LA itself has a population of almost 4 million. While I think this a grea

This is a great idea, until you remember Finland has a population of about 5 million. LA itself has a population of almost 4 million. While I think this a great idea, it's pretty easy to do with such a small population. Once you start talking about a scale the size of the US, it gets rather spendy in a hurry.

eru 13y ago
Why don't they chop up the US in 60 Finland sized bits, if it's so much easier to have success in a small country?
- ecopoesis 13y ago
  Great idea. We can call these bits: "states"
- billybob255 13y ago
  Uh, it's been chopped up into bits since it existed as a country (currently 50), and they're all a little different.
- samatman 13y ago
  I have to assume this was sarcasm, but they're called states, and many Americans would like to see them regain power relative to the Federal government. A baby box is the kind of thing California would do, if we weren't broke like everyone else. Though, California alone exceeds the population of all Nordic countries combined.
- roberto 13y ago
  Why not 50... and call them "states"?
grecy 13y ago
America also takes in taxes from it's vast population, so it still "costs" the same per capita.
- avar 13y ago
  Exactly, if anything it should be cheaper for the U.S. to do this per capita due to economies of scale.
anigbrowl 13y ago
Once you start talking about a scale the size of the US, it gets rather spendy in a hurry. Yes, but look at the long-term benefits. Under-privileged children end up costing society much more over the longer term.
mathieuh 13y ago
Did you not read about economies of scale when you were reading whatever libertarian crap you found?
nawitus 13y ago
The cost per capita is the same, so your argument doesn't really make sense. By the way, I see that argument every single time when someone proposes the USA to do something better. "It's a big country, we can't fix anything".
- Florin_Andrei 13y ago
  It is in the nature of some people on the libertarian / autistic / engineering spectrum to look at any issue out there and reduce it to trivial financial arithmetic. It's not out of ill will, it's just that this is their entire reality.
  - tych0 13y ago
    His point was that the financial arithmetic isn't prohibitive. A box full of stuff costs the same amount whether you give out 5 million or 300 million (in fact, economics of scale says that the US could probably do it cheaper than Finland can). We have 300 million people (or whatever the birthrate is) which is certainly more than Finland has, but we also then have 300 million taxpayers. Sure, the absolute cost is higher, but the cost per capita is not.
    - randallsquared 13y ago
      Well, about 300 million people, but less than 100 million taxpayers. About 130 million workers in the US [1], of whom about 30% have a negative income tax rate[2]. Doesn't completely change your point, since less than half of Finland's population works as well[3], but I thought it worth mentioning. [1] http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/05/employed-persons-1999-2001-2003-2011/ http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/05/employed-persons-1999-2... [2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/18/who-doesnt-pay-taxes-in-charts/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/18/w... [3] http://www.tradingeconomics.com/finland/employed-persons http://www.tradingeconomics.com/finland/employed-persons
      - pmorici 13y ago
tomkarlo 13y ago
It's even more expensive to do nothing when your health care system has to pick up the pieces. Appropriate preventative strategies can be cost-effective, and should be easier for voters to support (since they benefit everyone rather than just the ill.)
pkulak 13y ago
No, the reason it will never happen is because every single interest that sells any baby anything will oppose it (unless they are written into the bill to sell to the government at 110% retail). Even if 99% of the population wants it, Target gets a veto. That's why all these great programs that anyone mentions have started 50+ years ago; back when something could get done even if you could find one large corporation that it wasn't in the best interests of.

eru 13y ago

Why don't they chop up the US in 60 Finland sized bits, if it's so much easier to have success in a small country?

ecopoesis 13y ago
Great idea. We can call these bits: "states"
billybob255 13y ago
Uh, it's been chopped up into bits since it existed as a country (currently 50), and they're all a little different.
samatman 13y ago
I have to assume this was sarcasm, but they're called states, and many Americans would like to see them regain power relative to the Federal government. A baby box is the kind of thing California would do, if we weren't broke like everyone else. Though, California alone exceeds the population of all Nordic countries combined.
roberto 13y ago
Why not 50... and call them "states"?

grecy 13y ago

America also takes in taxes from it's vast population, so it still "costs" the same per capita.

avar 13y ago
Exactly, if anything it should be cheaper for the U.S. to do this per capita due to economies of scale.

anigbrowl 13y ago

Once you start talking about a scale the size of the US, it gets rather spendy in a hurry. Yes, but look at the long-term benefits. Under-privileged children end up costing society much more over the longer term.

mathieuh 13y ago

Did you not read about economies of scale when you were reading whatever libertarian crap you found?

nawitus 13y ago

The cost per capita is the same, so your argument doesn't really make sense. By the way, I see that argument every single time when someone proposes the USA to do something better. "It's a big country, we can't fix anything".

Florin_Andrei 13y ago
It is in the nature of some people on the libertarian / autistic / engineering spectrum to look at any issue out there and reduce it to trivial financial arithmetic. It's not out of ill will, it's just that this is their entire reality.
- tych0 13y ago
  His point was that the financial arithmetic isn't prohibitive. A box full of stuff costs the same amount whether you give out 5 million or 300 million (in fact, economics of scale says that the US could probably do it cheaper than Finland can). We have 300 million people (or whatever the birthrate is) which is certainly more than Finland has, but we also then have 300 million taxpayers. Sure, the absolute cost is higher, but the cost per capita is not.
  - randallsquared 13y ago
    Well, about 300 million people, but less than 100 million taxpayers. About 130 million workers in the US [1], of whom about 30% have a negative income tax rate[2]. Doesn't completely change your point, since less than half of Finland's population works as well[3], but I thought it worth mentioning. [1] http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/05/employed-persons-1999-2001-2003-2011/ http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/05/employed-persons-1999-2... [2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/18/who-doesnt-pay-taxes-in-charts/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/18/w... [3] http://www.tradingeconomics.com/finland/employed-persons http://www.tradingeconomics.com/finland/employed-persons
    - pmorici 13y ago

tomkarlo 13y ago

It's even more expensive to do nothing when your health care system has to pick up the pieces. Appropriate preventative strategies can be cost-effective, and should be easier for voters to support (since they benefit everyone rather than just the ill.)

pkulak 13y ago

No, the reason it will never happen is because every single interest that sells any baby anything will oppose it (unless they are written into the bill to sell to the government at 110% retail). Even if 99% of the population wants it, Target gets a veto. That's why all these great programs that anyone mentions have started 50+ years ago; back when something could get done even if you could find one large corporation that it wasn't in the best interests of.