Thanks for the effort you put in this response.
Is it a good summary when I say that Belgium in population and area can be compared with a metropolitan area of any major city in the USA? And best should be compared as such?
I’m very much surprised with the migration figures being as high as you mention.
Europe is surrounded with countries in war in Eastern-Europe, Middle-East and Africa. And many of our migrants are refugees.
All the migration towards USA is mainly from south of the USA, correct? There’s no war going on over there, so do these migrants also poor living conditions and are mostly fortune seekers?
Or are their lives in danger from the government in these countries?
Is it a good summary when I say that Belgium in population and area can be compared with a metropolitan area of any major city in the USA?
It kinda depends, the US is very diverse in it’s city layout. NYC metro area is 34,400 km^2 with 23 million people. Nashville is 19,000 km^2 with 2 million population.
And best should be compared as such?
My point was more that it’s hard to make Federal government comparisons between small European countries and the US. A topic like healthcare or education varies greatly municipality to municipality and state to state. A city like Washington DC or NYC might be a better comparison to Belgium, but Butte Montana isn’t. If you’re trying to compare the US average to the Belgium average you have to average Butte in with NYC.
A good example might be infrastructure. People commonly say that the US shouldn’t do XYZ and instead invest in our poor/old infrastructure, but it’s hard to do since we have so much more to cover. There’s definitely mismanagement throughout, but a big portion of it is also just providing for more people in a larger area.
I’m very much surprised with the migration figures being as high as you mention. Europe is surrounded with countries in war in Eastern-Europe, Middle-East and Africa. And many of our migrants are refugees.
All the migration towards USA is mainly from south of the USA, correct? There’s no war going on over there, so do these migrants also poor living conditions and are mostly fortune seekers? Or are their lives in danger from the government in these countries?
From what I can tell, only around 25% of immigrants are from Mexico. A lot of people view the US as a desirable place to live despite what some people say.
Mexico, Central and South America have issues like anywhere else. From my understanding some parts of Mexico are somewhat dangerous due to the drug cartels, but other areas are exceptionally safe. The economies have a large divide in income, the median income of Tijuana is $16.6k annually while the median income of Chula Vista California is $35k annually; they are 21 kilometers apart if not for the border.
People love to bring up our vast expanses of land in these infrastructure comparisons, but that wasn’t an insurmountable problem when we wanted transcontinental railroad, telegraph, telephone, etc…
I think we can agree that there is a significant difference in building the railroad or telegraph/gram lines the first time and maintaining it in perpetuity. Also, it’s a lot easier to build and maintain something when it isn’t actively being used and depended on by people. Also, the government doesn’t own infrastructure like railroads, power lines, or telephone lines in most cases. The Federal government paid to have it built the first time, but continued maintenance was supposed to fall on other entities which the government allowed to have a limited monopoly.
Building the railroad the first time so a regulated private monopoly can maintain it is a whole lot different from continually funding and enticing a private company to do best management practices. I’ll totally agree that we shouldn’t have let these monopolies exist in the first place, they should have been publicly run utilities, but that’s in the past and we can’t really change that now.
wasn’t an insurmountable problem when we wanted transcontinental railroad, telegraph, telephone
It’s worth noting that those were all massive handouts to private corporations. Some of the beneficiaries of those handouts are still on top of their industries today.
Thanks for the effort you put in this response. Is it a good summary when I say that Belgium in population and area can be compared with a metropolitan area of any major city in the USA? And best should be compared as such?
I’m very much surprised with the migration figures being as high as you mention. Europe is surrounded with countries in war in Eastern-Europe, Middle-East and Africa. And many of our migrants are refugees.
All the migration towards USA is mainly from south of the USA, correct? There’s no war going on over there, so do these migrants also poor living conditions and are mostly fortune seekers? Or are their lives in danger from the government in these countries?
It kinda depends, the US is very diverse in it’s city layout. NYC metro area is 34,400 km^2 with 23 million people. Nashville is 19,000 km^2 with 2 million population.
My point was more that it’s hard to make Federal government comparisons between small European countries and the US. A topic like healthcare or education varies greatly municipality to municipality and state to state. A city like Washington DC or NYC might be a better comparison to Belgium, but Butte Montana isn’t. If you’re trying to compare the US average to the Belgium average you have to average Butte in with NYC.
A good example might be infrastructure. People commonly say that the US shouldn’t do XYZ and instead invest in our poor/old infrastructure, but it’s hard to do since we have so much more to cover. There’s definitely mismanagement throughout, but a big portion of it is also just providing for more people in a larger area.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/08/20/key-findings-about-u-s-immigrants/
From what I can tell, only around 25% of immigrants are from Mexico. A lot of people view the US as a desirable place to live despite what some people say.
https://i.gifer.com/jVp.gif
Mexico, Central and South America have issues like anywhere else. From my understanding some parts of Mexico are somewhat dangerous due to the drug cartels, but other areas are exceptionally safe. The economies have a large divide in income, the median income of Tijuana is $16.6k annually while the median income of Chula Vista California is $35k annually; they are 21 kilometers apart if not for the border.
People love to bring up our vast expanses of land in these infrastructure comparisons, but that wasn’t an insurmountable problem when we wanted transcontinental railroad, telegraph, telephone, etc…
I think we can agree that there is a significant difference in building the railroad or telegraph/gram lines the first time and maintaining it in perpetuity. Also, it’s a lot easier to build and maintain something when it isn’t actively being used and depended on by people. Also, the government doesn’t own infrastructure like railroads, power lines, or telephone lines in most cases. The Federal government paid to have it built the first time, but continued maintenance was supposed to fall on other entities which the government allowed to have a limited monopoly.
Building the railroad the first time so a regulated private monopoly can maintain it is a whole lot different from continually funding and enticing a private company to do best management practices. I’ll totally agree that we shouldn’t have let these monopolies exist in the first place, they should have been publicly run utilities, but that’s in the past and we can’t really change that now.
It’s worth noting that those were all massive handouts to private corporations. Some of the beneficiaries of those handouts are still on top of their industries today.