Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Finland, especially in males, and Denmark, especially in females, and lower in Norway and Iceland, with Sweden in a middle position. The statistics are found to be comparable. In this article the development from 1880 to the present day is described, and special emphasis is laid on the development from 1960 onwards. Denmark and Finland still keep the top position, while the rise in suicide rates, especially in the age group 15-29 years, has been most marked in Norway. Within the Nordic region Greenland has an extremely high suicide rate, especially in youngsters, while the Faroe islands have a very low rate. Tentative explanations are given for the development of suicide rates in the Nordic countries.
Inaccurate. They are virtually equal. Here is one of many sources.
Where's the market incentive to have back roads or neighborhood streets? There's no private investment in having a street in your neighborhood without charging users fees. What if someone can't afford to pay a fee for using a specified street/road? You're basically prohibiting their freedom. You can't put a price tag on every facet of society. It's impractical. What you're asking for is society to implement an economic apartheid system where some people are forbidden transportation rights based on their income.
Back roads and neighborhood streets? Most of those are already provided by the market. Apartments and trailer parks build and maintain their own roads, so do many other neighborhoods. Especially gated communities.
In my view, neighborhood streets are the easiest thing to replace. A combination of private drives, cooperatives, and homeowners associations would solve pretty much all of the neighborhood transit questions. Highways are the second easiest problem to solve, since highways lend easily to tolls or some other kind of user fee(like a "car tag").
The only actual question-mark when it comes to privatizing roads in my view, is what I would call the "connecting roads". In Oklahoma, there are usually "county roads" every mile going north and south, and then east and west. The neighborhoods, regardless of if they are apartments, trailer parks, individual properties, or gated subdivisions, all connect to this square mile grid.
The main issue is, what happens if these connecting roads are privatized? And what effect might their privatization have on neighborhoods and businesses?
You seem to contend that it would trap poor people, limit their freedom, and create a sort of economic apartheid. It is my opinion that it would actually give the poor more freedom, and wouldn't lead to anymore economic apartheid than what already exists.
Let me explain a few things about my position on roads. I am not that concerned about economics. I'm not actually a big fan of putting price tags on things. In fact, I hate money, period. I have a very specific set of goals in this life, and my primary goal is actually to help the poor.
I worked for BNSF railroad for about four years, and I love trains. Largely, because I love efficiency. As the saying goes, there isn't a more efficient way to move anything than by "steel wheel on steel rail". Railroads also pay for themselves, unlike roads which are paid for through taxation. Ideally, there would be a significant increase in the use of railroads to move goods and people. And even better, it would take many or most of the semi-trucks off the highways and roads(making them safer). As well as significantly reducing our reliance on oil.
Which comes to the question, "If trains are so efficient, why don't we use them very much?", and secondly "If Mass transit is so efficient, why is it so expensive?(and therefore needs to be so heavily subsidized)", and lastly "What can be done to make mass transit cheaper and more practical?".
About six years ago, I was a big advocate for Obama as president, not because I liked Obama, but rather because I felt Joe Biden was the biggest hawk when it came to reforming America's transportation system and energy policy. I felt the key to almost all of the problems plaguing America in some form or another was rooted in America's energy policy. Especially environmental issues, economic issues, and foreign policy.
When I was debating with people on these forums about our need to expand rail service for mass transit. Someone asked me an interesting question, "Where are you going to put it?".
I remember I started scouring over my home city on google maps, trying to imagine where this new rail system that I envisioned would go. I came to the conclusion that the only places a mass-transit rail system could really go, would either be where old abandoned lines already were, or right along the established roadways.
Since in most cases, it isn't politically possible to take space away from roadways to provide room for a rail line that will impede traffic multiple times a day. The rail lines used for mass transit are almost always old rail lines, or are buried under the ground(IE subways). And this is usually limited to only those areas close to urban cores(and usually comes at an incredibly high cost).
As a result, most city governments when putting in place mass transit systems, almost always use the infrastructure that already exists, roads. They create a fleet of buses, not because buses are cheaper to operate, they are more expensive to operate. Rather, they are used simply because they require no additional infrastructure. Basically, buses are more competitive because they are being subsidized by the existence of subsidized roads.
Or more specifically, railroads can't compete with roads because roads are given such a huge competitive advantage through government subsidies. Thus, as long as the government continues to subsidize roads, the only way to have more railroads, is through the government equally subsidizing the railroads.
Since the cost of subsidizing both the car and mass transit is so expensive, and since the wealthy tend to prefer the car to the subway, and since the wealthy largely set policy, then in the vast majority of cases, the subsidizing of the automobile takes priority. The only exception is where the car is so impractical that mass transit becomes a necessity.
On the other hand, my question was, "What if the government didn't subsidize either of them?". In the absence of government intervention, wouldn't the cheaper and more efficient railroad "win"?
If the cheaper and more efficient railroad began to out-compete the car. Wouldn't that drastically change our entire transportation system? In fact, we might get to the point where roads were no longer even a necessity(or at least became far less of a necessity).
If our entire transportation system began changing, how might that affect neighborhoods and businesses?
For that matter, might the absence of government subsidized roads also have an effect on even the design of roads or other methods of moving people? For instance, if the cost to drive increased or at least the cost was more noticeable(instead of hidden), it might make more sense for more people to walk or ride bicycles(since sidewalks and bike lanes would be much cheaper to build than roads). Might the absence of so much reliance on roads cause an increase in the demand for bike lanes and sidewalks?
Even more importantly, the largest complaint from mass transit advocates is "urban sprawl". How might this sprawl be affected by these huge changes in the transportation system? Critics of urban sprawl know that urban sprawl and roads(especially interstates) go hand-in-hand. How would an increase in rail traffic affect sprawl?
Sprawl as it is now, largely tracks interstates. But it can actually extend pretty far from those interstates. In the case of railroads, the distance of sprawl from the railroad is more limited. Basically, a railroad-centric transportation system would create urban development largely tracking the "rail stops". Creating islands or pockets of high population-density instead of the continuous sprawl we see from roads.
By driving down the cost of transit and by reducing sprawl, wouldn't the "poor" benefit? Especially if you also abolished the zoning laws that separates businesses from housing. In New York City, dwellings are stacked on top of businesses. Even in the "Wild West", most people lived above their shops. Only in recent times have zoning laws came into effect, and zoning laws effectively require people to travel longer distances for pretty much anything.
Basically, I'm not an advocate of privatizing roads because of some sort of "freedom" or "price" argument. Rather I want to completely upend our entire transportation system. The system we have now is hardly "natural" and has absolutely nothing to do with the free market, it is purely politically artificial. In my view, the absence of government regulation of transportation would actually produce the very thing liberals claim to want. Yet, trying to get a liberal to see that is nearly impossible.
I can tell you how I came to where I am now. It was the argument by environmentalists, that the price of gasoline should be considerably higher than it currently is. That the fuel tax hasn't been raised in about 20 years. That it doesn't come anywhere close to covering the cost of the roads. That our reliance on foreign oil forces us to constantly intervene in the Middle-East. Meaning that a considerable portion of our defense and foreign relations budget should be paid for by fuel taxes instead of general taxes. Among other expenses. In total, the people against oil will argue that the "true cost" of a gallon of gasoline should be more like $5-$15 a gallon.
If that is true, then liberals don't need to kill oil. They need to let oil kill itself. They need to recognize that their policies are actually protecting oil.
Now, if we go back to the "connecting roads" problem. If there is an expansion of rail use, and a total restructuring of all transportation. Then the connecting roads will no longer function in the same way they do now. Instead of being the entire transportation backbone, they will just compliment the rest of the system. For most people, as long as they shop fairly locally, they could probably avoid having to pay any sort of fee. And most longer distances would be traveled by bicycle or train or bus or something else for a relatively low cost, at an irregular interval.
If you remember for a moment that there are significant fees that low-income people must pay right now in order to drive. These include having to tag their vehicle yearly and car insurance. But they also pay taxes, such as fuel taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes which also go to pay for roads. In total, it probably costs a low-income person between $500 and $1,500 a year to drive a car, after you add up the various taxes, fees, and insurance.
Which means poor people pay between $1.50 to about $4.50 a day just to own a car. That doesn't even include the cost to buy the car, maintain it, and drive it. And because of the way the system is setup, in most parts of the country there are no practical alternatives. In truth, the average low-income person probably spends between $1,500 and $3,000 a year just in transportation costs. Which is between $4.50 and $9 a day.
It seems unreasonable to me to think that the cost to the poor will be greater than it already is. And if I'm right in my predictions about the changes to the transportation system and its effects on neighborhood design and functionality. Then the poor might end up living in cities basically structured sort of like Manhattan(high density, with a lot of local shops and the ability to live without a car), but without the ridiculously high rents.
For just a quick point-of-reference, I have this weird obsession with "Kowloon Walled City". I know its not exactly representative of a real free market, but it goes in that direction. The result of basically "no rules" was an incredibly high-density area without roads, incredibly cheap rent, and almost all occupations and shopping was done very locally.
Which I must say, I feel that the Kowloon Walled city proves my thesis on urban population density in the absence of government regulation. I think the historic population density of the lower-east side of Manhattan also proves my theory. Manhattan couldn't be what it is today if it hadn't been for a time when there were almost no regulations on housing, transportation, and industry.
Here is some other reading that at least supports my argument somewhat.
Step 1: Implement the Nordic system of immigration and assimilation.
That'll be enough to throw this entire conversation out the window for the Left.
I don't know where that myth comes from. Scandinavia is not good at integrating immigrants at all. Remember that western immigrants are included, if you excluded them the numbers would be even worse.
Percent Difference in Employment Rates of Immigrants and Natives (Ages 15 to 64) in OECD Countries, 2009-10
Lefties don't realize that the Nordic people don't just sit around waiting for a check. They are hard working and industrious.
Most college grad 20 something's from America wouldn't last 6 months up there.
Oh, but you can get "free" medical insurance!
Maybe American youth would work harder if they felt like they would be fairly compensated for it. I challenge your assertion that Millennials don't work hard too. I just went to a fancy restaurant and our waitress, who looked my age (early mid-20s ish) worked EXTREMELY hard to make us happy.
Back roads and neighborhood streets? Most of those are already provided by the market. Apartments and trailer parks build and maintain their own roads, so do many other neighborhoods. Especially gated communities.
In my view, neighborhood streets are the easiest thing to replace. A combination of private drives, cooperatives, and homeowners associations would solve pretty much all of the neighborhood transit questions. Highways are the second easiest problem to solve, since highways lend easily to tolls or some other kind of user fee(like a "car tag").
The only actual question-mark when it comes to privatizing roads in my view, is what I would call the "connecting roads". In Oklahoma, there are usually "county roads" every mile going north and south, and then east and west. The neighborhoods, regardless of if they are apartments, trailer parks, individual properties, or gated subdivisions, all connect to this square mile grid.
The main issue is, what happens if these connecting roads are privatized? And what effect might their privatization have on neighborhoods and businesses?
You seem to contend that it would trap poor people, limit their freedom, and create a sort of economic apartheid. It is my opinion that it would actually give the poor more freedom, and wouldn't lead to anymore economic apartheid than what already exists.
Let me explain a few things about my position on roads. I am not that concerned about economics. I'm not actually a big fan of putting price tags on things. In fact, I hate money, period. I have a very specific set of goals in this life, and my primary goal is actually to help the poor.
I worked for BNSF railroad for about four years, and I love trains. Largely, because I love efficiency. As the saying goes, there isn't a more efficient way to move anything than by "steel wheel on steel rail". Railroads also pay for themselves, unlike roads which are paid for through taxation. Ideally, there would be a significant increase in the use of railroads to move goods and people. And even better, it would take many or most of the semi-trucks off the highways and roads(making them safer). As well as significantly reducing our reliance on oil.
Which comes to the question, "If trains are so efficient, why don't we use them very much?", and secondly "If Mass transit is so efficient, why is it so expensive?(and therefore needs to be so heavily subsidized)", and lastly "What can be done to make mass transit cheaper and more practical?".
About six years ago, I was a big advocate for Obama as president, not because I liked Obama, but rather because I felt Joe Biden was the biggest hawk when it came to reforming America's transportation system and energy policy. I felt the key to almost all of the problems plaguing America in some form or another was rooted in America's energy policy. Especially environmental issues, economic issues, and foreign policy.
When I was debating with people on these forums about our need to expand rail service for mass transit. Someone asked me an interesting question, "Where are you going to put it?".
I remember I started scouring over my home city on google maps, trying to imagine where this new rail system that I envisioned would go. I came to the conclusion that the only places a mass-transit rail system could really go, would either be where old abandoned lines already were, or right along the established roadways.
Since in most cases, it isn't politically possible to take space away from roadways to provide room for a rail line that will impede traffic multiple times a day. The rail lines used for mass transit are almost always old rail lines, or are buried under the ground(IE subways). And this is usually limited to only those areas close to urban cores(and usually comes at an incredibly high cost).
As a result, most city governments when putting in place mass transit systems, almost always use the infrastructure that already exists, roads. They create a fleet of buses, not because buses are cheaper to operate, they are more expensive to operate. Rather, they are used simply because they require no additional infrastructure. Basically, buses are more competitive because they are being subsidized by the existence of subsidized roads.
Or more specifically, railroads can't compete with roads because roads are given such a huge competitive advantage through government subsidies. Thus, as long as the government continues to subsidize roads, the only way to have more railroads, is through the government equally subsidizing the railroads.
Since the cost of subsidizing both the car and mass transit is so expensive, and since the wealthy tend to prefer the car to the subway, and since the wealthy largely set policy, then in the vast majority of cases, the subsidizing of the automobile takes priority. The only exception is where the car is so impractical that mass transit becomes a necessity.
On the other hand, my question was, "What if the government didn't subsidize either of them?". In the absence of government intervention, wouldn't the cheaper and more efficient railroad "win"?
If the cheaper and more efficient railroad began to out-compete the car. Wouldn't that drastically change our entire transportation system? In fact, we might get to the point where roads were no longer even a necessity(or at least became far less of a necessity).
If our entire transportation system began changing, how might that affect neighborhoods and businesses?
For that matter, might the absence of government subsidized roads also have an effect on even the design of roads or other methods of moving people? For instance, if the cost to drive increased or at least the cost was more noticeable(instead of hidden), it might make more sense for more people to walk or ride bicycles(since sidewalks and bike lanes would be much cheaper to build than roads). Might the absence of so much reliance on roads cause an increase in the demand for bike lanes and sidewalks?
Even more importantly, the largest complaint from mass transit advocates is "urban sprawl". How might this sprawl be affected by these huge changes in the transportation system? Critics of urban sprawl know that urban sprawl and roads(especially interstates) go hand-in-hand. How would an increase in rail traffic affect sprawl?
Sprawl as it is now, largely tracks interstates. But it can actually extend pretty far from those interstates. In the case of railroads, the distance of sprawl from the railroad is more limited. Basically, a railroad-centric transportation system would create urban development largely tracking the "rail stops". Creating islands or pockets of high population-density instead of the continuous sprawl we see from roads.
By driving down the cost of transit and by reducing sprawl, wouldn't the "poor" benefit? Especially if you also abolished the zoning laws that separates businesses from housing. In New York City, dwellings are stacked on top of businesses. Even in the "Wild West", most people lived above their shops. Only in recent times have zoning laws came into effect, and zoning laws effectively require people to travel longer distances for pretty much anything.
Basically, I'm not an advocate of privatizing roads because of some sort of "freedom" or "price" argument. Rather I want to completely upend our entire transportation system. The system we have now is hardly "natural" and has absolutely nothing to do with the free market, it is purely politically artificial. In my view, the absence of government regulation of transportation would actually produce the very thing liberals claim to want. Yet, trying to get a liberal to see that is nearly impossible.
I can tell you how I came to where I am now. It was the argument by environmentalists, that the price of gasoline should be considerably higher than it currently is. That the fuel tax hasn't been raised in about 20 years. That it doesn't come anywhere close to covering the cost of the roads. That our reliance on foreign oil forces us to constantly intervene in the Middle-East. Meaning that a considerable portion of our defense and foreign relations budget should be paid for by fuel taxes instead of general taxes. Among other expenses. In total, the people against oil will argue that the "true cost" of a gallon of gasoline should be more like $5-$15 a gallon.
If that is true, then liberals don't need to kill oil. They need to let oil kill itself. They need to recognize that their policies are actually protecting oil.
Now, if we go back to the "connecting roads" problem. If there is an expansion of rail use, and a total restructuring of all transportation. Then the connecting roads will no longer function in the same way they do now. Instead of being the entire transportation backbone, they will just compliment the rest of the system. For most people, as long as they shop fairly locally, they could probably avoid having to pay any sort of fee. And most longer distances would be traveled by bicycle or train or bus or something else for a relatively low cost, at an irregular interval.
If you remember for a moment that there are significant fees that low-income people must pay right now in order to drive. These include having to tag their vehicle yearly and car insurance. But they also pay taxes, such as fuel taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes which also go to pay for roads. In total, it probably costs a low-income person between $500 and $1,500 a year to drive a car, after you add up the various taxes, fees, and insurance.
Which means poor people pay between $1.50 to about $4.50 a day just to own a car. That doesn't even include the cost to buy the car, maintain it, and drive it. And because of the way the system is setup, in most parts of the country there are no practical alternatives. In truth, the average low-income person probably spends between $1,500 and $3,000 a year just in transportation costs. Which is between $4.50 and $9 a day.
It seems unreasonable to me to think that the cost to the poor will be greater than it already is. And if I'm right in my predictions about the changes to the transportation system and its effects on neighborhood design and functionality. Then the poor might end up living in cities basically structured sort of like Manhattan(high density, with a lot of local shops and the ability to live without a car), but without the ridiculously high rents.
For just a quick point-of-reference, I have this weird obsession with "Kowloon Walled City". I know its not exactly representative of a real free market, but it goes in that direction. The result of basically "no rules" was an incredibly high-density area without roads, incredibly cheap rent, and almost all occupations and shopping was done very locally.
Which I must say, I feel that the Kowloon Walled city proves my thesis on urban population density in the absence of government regulation. I think the historic population density of the lower-east side of Manhattan also proves my theory. Manhattan couldn't be what it is today if it hadn't been for a time when there were almost no regulations on housing, transportation, and industry.
Here is some other reading that at least supports my argument somewhat.
I worked for BNSF railroad for about four years, and I love trains. Largely, because I love efficiency. As the saying goes, there isn't a more efficient way to move anything than by "steel wheel on steel rail". Railroads also pay for themselves, unlike roads which are paid for through taxation. Ideally, there would be a significant increase in the use of railroads to move goods and people. And even better, it would take many or most of the semi-trucks off the highways and roads(making them safer). As well as significantly reducing our reliance on oil.
I've asked you before how you back a consist into a standard loading dock. I live near one of the biggest rail yards you want to know about. The trains are endless. The road that brings the tucks in is also endless. Trucks all day and all night and weekends too. They aren't going away. They just take the truck bodies off and load them onto flat-bed railcars now as you must know. The days of boxcars are long gone. It is a synergy of the two modes. And... last I knew diesel locomotives used the same fuel that semi-trucks use. Container ships too for that matter.
H
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
