It does. We are pretty fucked with the amount of money it's gonna take to repair all roads and bridges that need fixing.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear about more bridge collapses like we saw in Minnesota a few years back.

I think we should try privatising infrastructure in some areas. Just as a test. I see a bright future in privatised roads and bridges.

Quote from: King pesto on May 13, 2015, 12:32:27 PM

I think we should try privatising infrastructure in some areas. Just as a test. I see a bright future in privatised roads and bridges.

You don't see the possibility for corruption?

I don't see how private corruption is nearly the threat that government corruption is.

Can you elaborate?

America should have crappy infrastructure.

Development costs are insane compared to other developed countries. You can have cheaper infrastructure, but only if you're willing to slim down unions, cut environmental legislation and roll-back entitlements.

Also, I favour incentivising the private sector to contribute.

>slim down unions
>cut environmental legislation
>roll back entitlements

I can tell you don't live here.

The national infrastructure is very shoddy on the whole. Newer communities tend to have better urban planning but the rough reality of the population booms in the 1920s/1950s and all the economic trends that came alongside is that the urban sprawl outpaced the bureaucracy's ability to properly keep up.

I'd be willing to try privatization in some areas to at least figure out a better way to do roads. Can't be any more incompetent than the government, and we could put fail-safes for accountability in place

Unions in this country are nearly nonexistent

. . . Okay. That doesn't change the fact that most strikes take place in the construction sector and that the cost of construction is incredibly high due to consultancy and labour fees.

Anyone saying unions need to be cut for infrastructure doesn't understand America very well, or is a fox news pundit.

Or, y'know, understands economics.

Which would obviously be a bad thing...for you know the environment.

I don't remember disagreeing with that.

As far as entitlements conservatives are already trying to privatize Social Security and Medicare.

Yes, because Bush didn't get shafted by the AARP in 2005 and then go on to expand them by 51pc and 131pc respectively. I also don't see how this is relevant. . . People trying to privatise it doesn't mean it's privatised. . . Duh. And Obamacare totally didn't raise the Medicaid boundary to 131pc of the poverty line and totally shaft states like Alabama and Arkansas who were trying to slim down their rolls.

Don't get me started on healthcare. Compared to the rest of the modern world this is an area we lag behind in drastically.

Partly as a result of excessive regulation and ridiculous tax deductions; but I don't know what this has to do with entitlements.

America is hardly the land of entitlements

Yeah, it kind of is. The vested interests of entitlement programmes have blocked any kind of substantial reform every time it's been tried in recent history. Hong Kong, for instance, has a mandatory retirement savings programme along with the best infrastructure in the world.

I didn't even say that America had too many entitlements, I said that the current state of entitlement spending (including pensions) is retarding infrastructural development. That's a statement of fact, not of values. So I don't know why you're assuming this proposition is "People have too much welfare". . . Because I didn't say that.

So really you're just listing conservative talking points that don't hold up to reality.

Ha, no I'm not. You're shoehorning in your biases by thinking me saying "This would allow for the construction of more infrastructure" is me actually saying "We should do all of this

Suggesting we should defund all the stuff that is already practically gutted

What? No, it isn't. The fact that structural issues cause massive funding deficits is not them being "gutted", it's them being inefficient.

Development costs are insane compared to other developed countries. You can have cheaper infrastructure, but only if you're willing to slim down unions, cut environmental legislation and roll-back entitlements.

Or we could just cut the highly unnecessary military budget and use that for far better things like fixing up our infrastructure and education. We need a better power grid  than jets and tanks that are just sitting there. We can go by for years on the tech we have for it since our only threat is North Korea and I highly doubt they're going to hurt us.

This state has a huge road problem, and unions overpowering PenDOT is a huge problem within that huge problem.

I haven't noticed any issues if there are any in Montana. Being as this is a low population state that is mostly flat plains. Bridges are few and far between and the tallest structures in my town are just water towers. Certainly an issue elsewhere. I general associate poor infrastructure with large cities like Chicago and Detroit.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on May 13, 2015, 12:25:16 PM

America should have crappy infrastructure.

And this kids is why idiots are dangerous

Are you sure you're not American?

Meta's a Britbonger.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on May 13, 2015, 12:25:16 PM

America should have crappy infrastructure.

And this kids is why idiots are dangerous

I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's a statement of fact, not of value. Which you really should've gleaned from the rest of the post. The point is that America's crappy infrastructure is not an anomaly; it should be that way because of inflated construction costs.

It would be weird if infrastructure were good.

Quote from: Not Comms Officer on May 14, 2015, 11:22:53 PM

The country would enter an economic crisis if the infrastructure went to shit.

It should have crappy infrastructure because of high construction costs. Which is why I then went on to say methods of slimming down such costs would allow for the improvement of infrastructure.

I'm not making a moral statement about what the quality of US infrastructure ought to be.

Well, most of the infrastructure in terms of highways and railroads in the US has now switched to maintenance rather than construction.

Quote from: Not Comms Officer on May 15, 2015, 02:20:07 AM

Well, most of the infrastructure in terms of highways and railroads in the US has now switched to maintenance rather than construction.

Even so, infrastructure can only survive for so long.

Plus, I think wages and unionisation among construction workers is the same for maintenance workers since a lot of the former are employed for the latter.

I'm not really sure what you want to do here. So should the US continue maintenance on highways/railroads, let them become more decrepit yet usable, or just shut them down period?

Quote from: Not Comms Officer on May 15, 2015, 02:23:59 AM

I'm not really sure what you want to do here. So should the US continue maintenance on highways/railroads, let them become more decrepit yet usable, or just shut them down period?

I don't have any strong opinions, to be honest. If you're willing to hamstring the labour unions of these construction workers and completely overhaul the welfare system you could probably have infrastructure on par with Hong Kong.

That's what I favour, from a hypothetical point of view, but if you're looking for a realistic answer I don't have it. If the whole of the US were to become like Texas in the slimming down of unions, maybe some environmental regulations and entitlements then you could see a nationwide improvement in quality without the fairly radical policies I'd otherwise desire.

Ah, labor unions.. Gotta love those. And when I say that, I mean fuck them. I would not be in a state of mourning if they were dismantled or checked in influence.