America is a sick society

[pbrower2a]

(10-05-2018, 07:10 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(10-05-2018, 06:01 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Zero population growth worldwide!

Space colonization will make room for many billions of people in the solar system. Of course, population growth must slow down somewhat, as the number of people cannot grow faster than new habitats are built.

Material would have to come from the Earth just to create room for agriculture in space, lest we are to find a way of feeding people on solar power. The material would have to come by shrinking the mass of the Earth.

[Eric the Green]

(10-09-2018, 11:18 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-05-2018, 07:10 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(10-05-2018, 06:01 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Zero population growth worldwide!

Space colonization will make room for many billions of people in the solar system. Of course, population growth must slow down somewhat, as the number of people cannot grow faster than new habitats are built.

I suspect that ZPG will simply happen of its own accord.  When having many children is less desirable than having none at all, the population problem reverses, as it has in many countries already.  Space colonization?  Not soon and not in any substantial number when it starts in earnest.

Correct. The best way to slow population growth is to help spur growth and prosperity among the people of the world. And also to do something that red state Americans oppose: advance feminism and women's rights including the right to birth control and abortion.

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-09-2018, 11:18 AM)David Horn Wrote: Space colonization?  Not soon and not in any substantial number when it starts in earnest.

Definitely.  To date we have not solved the radiation thus cancer problem.  Until we do, gathering enough assets to be self sustaining is the least of problems.  We are unable to go beyond Earths protective magnetic fields save relatively short expeditions.

[pbrower2a]

(10-10-2018, 06:37 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(10-09-2018, 11:18 AM)David Horn Wrote: Space colonization?  Not soon and not in any substantial number when it starts in earnest.

Definitely.  To date we have not solved the radiation thus cancer problem.  Until we do, gathering enough assets to be self sustaining is the least of problems.  We are unable to go beyond Earths protective magnetic fields save relatively short expeditions.

Ozone layer. The vessel would need a layer of ozone between the areas for living or working and the outer shell of the satellite. A big problem: ozone is dangerously toxic and reactive.

[David Horn]

(10-11-2018, 09:14 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(10-10-2018, 06:37 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(10-09-2018, 11:18 AM)David Horn Wrote: Space colonization?  Not soon and not in any substantial number when it starts in earnest.

Definitely.  To date we have not solved the radiation thus cancer problem.  Until we do, gathering enough assets to be self sustaining is the least of problems.  We are unable to go beyond Earths protective magnetic fields save relatively short expeditions.

Ozone layer. The vessel would need a layer of ozone between the areas for living or working and the outer shell of the satellite. A big problem: ozone is dangerously toxic and reactive.

The problem is deep space, where charge particle bursts from solar flares are actual killers.  So far, the only option is a lead-lined chamber that holds all the travelers -- assuming they can accurately identify every burst well in advance.  Unfortunately, gamma bursts, which are less deadly but still really bad, give no advanced warning.  Then again, the lead-lined chamber is only a partial protection anyway.

[Eric the Green]

Published on
Thursday, December 05, 2019
by Common Dreams
'Make America 36th Out of 41 Developed Nations Again':
Social Justice Index of Developed Nations Puts US Near Bottom
Meanwhile, the democratic-socialist Nordic countries of Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Sweden enjoy the top spots in detailed survey of OECD nations.

by Jon Queally, staff writer



Not dead last, but close to it.

That's where the United States came out in a new survey of the world's 41 highly-developed nations measuring access to social justice and the opportunities they afford their respective citizens and residents.

The Social Justice Index (SJI), detailed in a 274-page report (pdf) and put out by the Bertelsmann Stiftung foundation in Germany, ranks the more than three dozen European Union and OECD nations based on six key social justice dynamics: poverty, education, the labor market, intergenerational justice, health, and social inclusion and nondiscrimination.

While the group said "the picture is rather bleak across the board," it is the Nordic countries which generally rank highest—with Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Sweden the top five. On the other end, the U.S. came in near the very bottom, ranking 36 out of 41 nations overall, only coming out ahead of Chile, Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey, and Mexico.

Especially on the issue of poverty, the foundation said in a statement, the U.S. under President Donald Trump "falters considerably" compared to other developed nations. According to the group:

The risk of poverty in the country remains high at 17.8% – only Israel exceeds this rate. Children and youth (poverty risk of 21%) as well as senior citizens (23.1%) are particularly at risk of poverty. There are no improvements to be expected on the horizon; instead, the recent cuts in social spending taken by the Trump administration raise fears that poverty will increase rather than decrease.

Setbacks have also been registered in the area of intergenerational justice, where the United States numbers among the five worst performers. This is in part due to the country’s weak environmental policies: with greenhouse gas emissions reaching 19.86 tons per capita, the United States is one of the biggest polluters in the sample (rank 40). The country’s weak efforts to leave behind an intact environment are also reflected in its failure to expand renewable energies, which account for a mere 8.7% of the country’s total energy generation. In addition, the government’s high budget deficit threatens to place a heavy financial burden on young and future generations. The per capita debt burden bearing down on every child in the United States is already exceedingly high at $351,810 (rank 38).

The index further explains that the U.S. "fails miserably" when it comes to placing value on the interests of both older and younger generations when it comes to its domestic policies. It also cites Trump's horrific environmental record as an area of particular concern.

"The Trump administration has been a rapidly escalating disaster for environmental policy," said one expert quoted in the report. "Although some of the more liberal states will attempt to continue reducing carbon emissions, no national action can be expected during Trump's presidency. Indeed, Trump has promised to rejuvenate the coal-mining industry, an economic absurdity."

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/1...ZLmdKv-HtQ

[Classic-Xer]

(01-14-2020, 07:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Published on
Thursday, December 05, 2019
by Common Dreams
'Make America 36th Out of 41 Developed Nations Again':
Social Justice Index of Developed Nations Puts US Near Bottom
Meanwhile, the democratic-socialist Nordic countries of Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Sweden enjoy the top spots in detailed survey of OECD nations.

by Jon Queally, staff writer



Not dead last, but close to it.

That's where the United States came out in a new survey of the world's 41 highly-developed nations measuring access to social justice and the opportunities they afford their respective citizens and residents.

The Social Justice Index (SJI), detailed in a 274-page report (pdf) and put out by the Bertelsmann Stiftung foundation in Germany, ranks the more than three dozen European Union and OECD nations based on six key social justice dynamics: poverty, education, the labor market, intergenerational justice, health, and social inclusion and nondiscrimination.

While the group said "the picture is rather bleak across the board," it is the Nordic countries which generally rank highest—with Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Sweden the top five. On the other end, the U.S. came in near the very bottom, ranking 36 out of 41 nations overall, only coming out ahead of Chile, Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey, and Mexico.

Especially on the issue of poverty, the foundation said in a statement, the U.S. under President Donald Trump "falters considerably" compared to other developed nations. According to the group:

The risk of poverty in the country remains high at 17.8% – only Israel exceeds this rate. Children and youth (poverty risk of 21%) as well as senior citizens (23.1%) are particularly at risk of poverty. There are no improvements to be expected on the horizon; instead, the recent cuts in social spending taken by the Trump administration raise fears that poverty will increase rather than decrease.

Setbacks have also been registered in the area of intergenerational justice, where the United States numbers among the five worst performers. This is in part due to the country’s weak environmental policies: with greenhouse gas emissions reaching 19.86 tons per capita, the United States is one of the biggest polluters in the sample (rank 40). The country’s weak efforts to leave behind an intact environment are also reflected in its failure to expand renewable energies, which account for a mere 8.7% of the country’s total energy generation. In addition, the government’s high budget deficit threatens to place a heavy financial burden on young and future generations. The per capita debt burden bearing down on every child in the United States is already exceedingly high at $351,810 (rank 38).

The index further explains that the U.S. "fails miserably" when it comes to placing value on the interests of both older and younger generations when it comes to its domestic policies. It also cites Trump's horrific environmental record as an area of particular concern.

"The Trump administration has been a rapidly escalating disaster for environmental policy," said one expert quoted in the report. "Although  some  of  the  more  liberal  states  will  attempt  to  continue  reducing carbon emissions, no national action can be expected during Trump's presidency. Indeed, Trump has promised to rejuvenate the coal-mining industry, an economic absurdity."

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/1...ZLmdKv-HtQ

If we got rid of California and some blue cities, where would we rank? Food for thought. Think about, how much money to we spend to provide costly services for your potential voter's and your illegals or your potential future voters and the refuges (more potential future voters) that your liberal policies associated with global agreements for us to take in and support. Like I said, you guys (the liberals) have a pretty good gig going on for themselves.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-14-2020, 11:51 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: If we got rid of California and some blue cities, where would we rank? Food for thought. Think about, how much money to we spend to provide costly services for your potential voter's and your illegals or your potential future voters and the refuges (more potential future voters) that your liberal policies associated with global agreements for us to take in and support. Like I said, you guys (the liberals) have a pretty good gig going on for themselves.

Part of the above is supporting tasks which must be done rather than leaving the jobs undone and pocketing the money. This would include attacking environmental issues and fixing infrastructure. The conservatives tend to live in areas which suffer less effects, and thus would rather pocket the money. Liberals consider this short sighted. OK, boomer?

This is one time where the racism draws close to the surface. The international agreements are there to help everybody. Some conservatives would rather focus on people most like themselves. Those supporting privilege and benefit for people most like themselves in skin pigmentation and religion are definitely frowned upon by liberals.

Are all people created equal? Must we work to preserve and build infrastructure, to continue stability? If we are to keep the benefits of lands where many live close together - pick up trucks, TV sets, other appliances built in more urban areas such as California and the other blue areas - we have to address the problems which result from folks that live close together. The more rural dwellers seem to want a free ride and get bent out of shape when they don’t get it. At the same time, in rural areas it is far more practical to adopt a more independent lifestyle, and they should not be forced to pay for or endure things they do not want or need. They are to some extent choosing to handle things themselves rather than pay for government specialists to do things for them. That is natural in a lower population density setting.

There are real solid reasons for the rural urban divide. Even the bias towards white male protestants is understandable, if reprehensible. The white male protestants a few centuries back had the blatant advantage of guns, germs and steel. They should keep that advantage forever? I would say not.

[pbrower2a]

(01-15-2020, 02:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-14-2020, 11:51 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: If we got rid of California and some blue cities, where would we rank? Food for thought. Think about, how much money to we spend to provide costly services for your potential voter's and your illegals or your potential future voters and the refuges (more potential future voters) that your liberal policies associated with global agreements for us to take in and support. Like I said, you guys (the liberals) have a pretty good gig going on for themselves.

Part of the above is supporting tasks which must be done rather than leaving the jobs undone and pocketing the money.  This would include attacking environmental issues and fixing infrastructure.   The conservatives tend to live in areas which suffer less effects, and thus would rather pocket the money.  Liberals consider this short sighted.  OK, boomer?

Notice that much of the new prosperity that we have comes from the creation of intellectual property (which may not be particularly intellectual, as with much television and many movies, or with supermarket tabloids and pulp novels)... but surely, Classic X'er is imbibing in the wares of Disney, Warner Brothers, Universal, CBS/Viacom,etc. We are at the age at which scarcity exists solely as a consequence of personal laziness or improvidence... or as means of control by elites who can enforce their will over the common man. Even the new poor may have much left from comparatively good times.

In about half the world, it is questionable that people can be made happier by having more stuff, let alone that people can make huge profits by making more stuff to sell. One can call this the end of economic growth if one wishes -- but we are there. It used to be possible to make a solid income as a factory worker because as such one was making things that could improve lives.  Manufacturing in America has largely been reduced to replacement or for items for one-time use (such as food). Profits are more likely to arise from cornering a market than from innovation or service. What investors like and what is good for Humanity are disparate entities. 

Quote:This is one time where the racism draws close to the surface.  The international agreements are there to help everybody.  Some conservatives would rather focus on people most like themselves.  Those supporting privilege and benefit for people most like themselves in skin pigmentation and religion are definitely frowned upon by liberals.

I would not inflict poverty on anyone else except as a consequence of gross misconduct -- like betting big on other people's money and losing while pocketing huge salaries. I don't feel sorry for people who lost out at Lehman Brothers, where a predatory ethos developed. Capitalism at its best rewards people for doing good even if a market demonstrates that one is producing a glut or garbage. (That is where the Soviet Union failed -- what it was producing was largely unmarketable unless it was an old luxury like caviar or diamonds or such raw materials as metals. 

This said, it is minority communities that often have the greater innovation in commercial enterprise, particularly because Big Business just does not know how to meet the demands of customers that bureaucratic elites simply do not understand. The minority communities may be less ravaged than poor whites who long relied upon Big Business as employers and vendors. Now that many have lost their employment (especially and most infamously in coal mining) they have no clue. Maybe if we were not so obliged to rely upon vertically-integrated oligopolies for work and supplies we would have fewer problems.     

Quote:Are all people created equal?  Must we work to preserve and build infrastructure, to continue stability?  If we are to keep the benefits of lands where many live close together - pick up trucks, TV sets, other appliances built in more urban areas such as California and the other blue areas - we have to address the problems which result from folks that live close together.  The more rural dwellers seem to want a free ride and get bent out of shape when they don’t get it.  At the same time, in rural areas it is far more practical to adopt a more independent lifestyle, and they should not be forced to pay for things they do not want or need.

If one is a wheat farmer in central Illinois, one may need the port facilities of Chicago to make one's wheat available to the rest of the world -- and hence marketable. One may also have school teachers from the University of Illinois to keep the kids from descending into the barbarism and barbarity that one often associates with inadequate education.  Besides, to avoid numbing boredom one attends movies made in Greater Los Angeles or cartoon features made in the San Francisco Bay Area, electronic devices designed in Silicon Valley, or books and magazines edited in New York City.  Every one of those places (including Champaign-Urbana, home of the University of Illinois) is flagrantly "blue".    

Quote:There are real solid reasons for the rural urban divide.  Even the bias towards white male protestants is understandable, if reprehensible.

People live differently in rural and urban America; Suburbia has become legitimately urban in its characteristics, which explains why what used to be the most reliably Republican part of America is going Democratic. Democrats better address urban problems because they have less fear of the intellect necessary for alleviating something so troublesome as traffic jams. Note well; Trump is the most clueless President that we have had in a long time -- long enough that in such times the federal government was a triviality in the lives of most people.

[Remy Renault]

"Pop culture" always strikes me as low hanging fruit in these types of discussions as if it's "all the same s**t", regardless of whether it's Disney-produced movies or Vince Gilligan-produced television shows. You can't make much intellectual headway if you're unwilling to dissect these cultural products on a case-by-case basis. I'm not suggesting Breaking Bad is beyond reproach, but "movies, television shows, and video games are turning adolescent brains to mush" is really just this era's version of "rock music is a message from the devil". People once had similar attitudes about Hitchcock movies. Go figure. And My Darling Clementine once used to be merely a 'campy Western'.

How is modern-day "prestige TV" so much worse than stuff like The Godfather or Taxi Driver, movies which people past a certain age might suggest were "real movies unlike the nonsense we have today"?

Not every cultural product needs to be the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel or Anna Karenina for its mere existence to be justified.

[David Horn]

(01-15-2020, 02:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-14-2020, 11:51 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: If we got rid of California and some blue cities, where would we rank? Food for thought. Think about, how much money to we spend to provide costly services for your potential voter's and your illegals or your potential future voters and the refuges (more potential future voters) that your liberal policies associated with global agreements for us to take in and support. Like I said, you guys (the liberals) have a pretty good gig going on for themselves.

Part of the above is supporting tasks which must be done rather than leaving the jobs undone and pocketing the money.  This would include attacking environmental issues and fixing infrastructure.   The conservatives tend to live in areas which suffer less effects, and thus would rather pocket the money.  Liberals consider this short sighted.  OK, boomer?

This is one time where the racism draws close to the surface.  The international agreements are there to help everybody.  Some conservatives would rather focus on people most like themselves.  Those supporting privilege and benefit for people most like themselves in skin pigmentation and religion are definitely frowned upon by liberals.

Are all people created equal?  Must we work to preserve and build infrastructure, to continue stability?  If we are to keep the benefits of lands where many live close together - pick up trucks, TV sets, other appliances built in more urban areas such as California and the other blue areas - we have to address the problems which result from folks that live close together.  The more rural dwellers seem to want a free ride and get bent out of shape when they don’t get it.  At the same time, in rural areas it is far more practical to adopt a more independent lifestyle, and they should not be forced to pay for or endure things they do not want or need.  They are to some extent choosing to handle things themselves rather than pay for government specialists to do things for them.  That is natural in a lower population density setting.

There are real solid reasons for the rural urban divide.  Even the bias towards white male protestants is understandable, if reprehensible.  The white male protestants a few centuries back had the blatant advantage of guns, germs and steel.  They should keep that advantage forever?  I would say not.

Bob, I have to take issue with your response, because some of Classic's premises are simply wrong.  First, the Blue areas of the US pay vastly more in taxes than they receive in return -- in any form!  Second, and no less important, is the fallacy of Perpetual Burden.  No, immigrants do not arrive and immediately produce more than they consume, but they do in short order.  By the 5th year of their residency they are typically net payors, having offset their initial cost to whomever helped get them on their feet.

So overall, it's the rural areas that are sucking the blood out of hard working urbanites (the incendiary language intended as a demonstration of how stupid it sounds in reverse).  Worse, most of the rural areas refuse to get help they clearly need, making their downward spiral inevitable and devastating.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-15-2020, 10:49 AM)David Horn Wrote: Bob, I have to take issue with your response, because some of Classic's premises are simply wrong.  First, the Blue areas of the US pay vastly more in taxes than they receive in return -- in any form!  Second, and no less important, is the fallacy of Perpetual Burden.  No, immigrants do not arrive and immediately produce more than they consume, but they do in short order.  By the 5th year of their residency they are typically net payors, having offset their initial cost to whomever helped get them on their feet.

So overall, it's the rural areas that are sucking the blood out of hard working urbanites (the incendiary language intended as a demonstration of how stupid it sounds in reverse).  Worse, most of the rural areas refuse to get help they clearly need, making their downward spiral inevitable and devastating.

I acknowledge the points you make, while sticking with what I say. I don't see the conservatives as believing in big government, but many of them will attempt to exploit big government. Their politics say low taxes, but at the same time they attempt to grab as much as they can from those taxes.

Part of that falls from the old slavery compromises. The senate, where each state gets two votes, was in part an attempt to give small rural states more power, thus they would gain the ability to protect their slave economy better and longer. The senate gives power to states, not power according to population. If you are going to grant power according to population, you might give populous states like California more weight than you give less populous states like Montana.

And the conservatives will exploit these old compromises...

[David Horn]

(01-16-2020, 05:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-15-2020, 10:49 AM)David Horn Wrote: Bob, I have to take issue with your response, because some of Classic's premises are simply wrong.  First, the Blue areas of the US pay vastly more in taxes than they receive in return -- in any form!  Second, and no less important, is the fallacy of Perpetual Burden.  No, immigrants do not arrive and immediately produce more than they consume, but they do in short order.  By the 5th year of their residency they are typically net payors, having offset their initial cost to whomever helped get them on their feet.

So overall, it's the rural areas that are sucking the blood out of hard working urbanites (the incendiary language intended as a demonstration of how stupid it sounds in reverse).  Worse, most of the rural areas refuse to get help they clearly need, making their downward spiral inevitable and devastating.

I acknowledge the points you make, while sticking with what I say.  I don't see the conservatives as believing in big government, but many of them will attempt to exploit big government.  Their politics say low taxes, but at the same time they attempt to grab as much as they can from those taxes.

Part of that falls from the old slavery compromises.  The senate, where each state gets two votes, was in part an attempt to give small rural states more power, thus they would gain the ability to protect their slave economy better and longer.  The senate gives power to states, not power according to population.  If you are going to grant power according to population, you might give populous states like California more weight than you give less populous states like Montana.

And the conservatives will exploit these old compromises...

I fully agree.  The compromises in the original Constitution are set in stone, at least for now.  I don't see that changing until someone finds a way to flood small rural states with enough urban dwellers to get Amendments passed that correct the imbalance.  And it's not just the Senate; the Electoral College needs to go too.  I don't expect to see any of this in my lifetime, unless something really dramatic forces the issue.  Until then, we'll have to rely on demographics and patience.

[Eric the Green]

(01-14-2020, 11:51 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-14-2020, 07:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Published on
Thursday, December 05, 2019
by Common Dreams
'Make America 36th Out of 41 Developed Nations Again':
Social Justice Index of Developed Nations Puts US Near Bottom
Meanwhile, the democratic-socialist Nordic countries of Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Sweden enjoy the top spots in detailed survey of OECD nations.

by Jon Queally, staff writer



Not dead last, but close to it.

That's where the United States came out in a new survey of the world's 41 highly-developed nations measuring access to social justice and the opportunities they afford their respective citizens and residents.

The Social Justice Index (SJI), detailed in a 274-page report (pdf) and put out by the Bertelsmann Stiftung foundation in Germany, ranks the more than three dozen European Union and OECD nations based on six key social justice dynamics: poverty, education, the labor market, intergenerational justice, health, and social inclusion and nondiscrimination.

While the group said "the picture is rather bleak across the board," it is the Nordic countries which generally rank highest—with Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Sweden the top five. On the other end, the U.S. came in near the very bottom, ranking 36 out of 41 nations overall, only coming out ahead of Chile, Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey, and Mexico.

Especially on the issue of poverty, the foundation said in a statement, the U.S. under President Donald Trump "falters considerably" compared to other developed nations. According to the group:

The risk of poverty in the country remains high at 17.8% – only Israel exceeds this rate. Children and youth (poverty risk of 21%) as well as senior citizens (23.1%) are particularly at risk of poverty. There are no improvements to be expected on the horizon; instead, the recent cuts in social spending taken by the Trump administration raise fears that poverty will increase rather than decrease.

Setbacks have also been registered in the area of intergenerational justice, where the United States numbers among the five worst performers. This is in part due to the country’s weak environmental policies: with greenhouse gas emissions reaching 19.86 tons per capita, the United States is one of the biggest polluters in the sample (rank 40). The country’s weak efforts to leave behind an intact environment are also reflected in its failure to expand renewable energies, which account for a mere 8.7% of the country’s total energy generation. In addition, the government’s high budget deficit threatens to place a heavy financial burden on young and future generations. The per capita debt burden bearing down on every child in the United States is already exceedingly high at $351,810 (rank 38).

The index further explains that the U.S. "fails miserably" when it comes to placing value on the interests of both older and younger generations when it comes to its domestic policies. It also cites Trump's horrific environmental record as an area of particular concern.

"The Trump administration has been a rapidly escalating disaster for environmental policy," said one expert quoted in the report. "Although  some  of  the  more  liberal  states  will  attempt  to  continue  reducing carbon emissions, no national action can be expected during Trump's presidency. Indeed, Trump has promised to rejuvenate the coal-mining industry, an economic absurdity."

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/1...ZLmdKv-HtQ

If we got rid of California and some blue cities, where would we rank? Food for thought. Think about, how much money to we spend to provide costly services for your potential voter's and your illegals or your potential future voters and the refuges (more potential future voters) that your liberal policies associated with global agreements for us to take in and support. Like I said, you guys (the liberals) have a pretty good gig going on for themselves.

David answered you well. On all indexes, as brower and I reported here for years, blue states tend to perform better, especially on any social justice indices. The blue states pay more of the taxes and get less of the support than the red states. One of the biggest boondoggles you get from us are all those military bases, which bankrolls and suits your militarist attitudes just fine. We certainly aren't getting any support from red states for immigrants. Housing costs are a big problem in CA, because of the demand. Immigrants do stress our education and welfare systems in CA, but those are state expenses. You guys (the conservatives) have a pretty good gig going for yourselves.

https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/...tates-last

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U....ment_Index

I admit, big blue states like CA and NY do less well compared to some red northern-plains and mountain states in such things as how many friends people have, how close knit are families, how many people volunteer, etc. That's a different scale. But a few of those states do fine on the HDI too. The fracking boom was great for North Dakota, but what happens when it busts?

[Eric the Green]

Rank State POLITICS (my insertion) HDI (2017) HDI (1995) Difference Comparable country

— United States (RED) 0.924 0.877 0.047 United Kingdom
01 Massachusetts BLUE .960 0.905 0.055 Norway
02 Connecticut BLUE 0.957 0.911 0.046 Norway
03 Minnesota 0.952 BLUE 0.901 0.049 Norway
04 District of Columbia BLUE 0.949 0.877 0.073 Norway
05 New Jersey BLUE 0.947 0.895 0.051 Switzerland
06 New Hampshire PURPLE TRENDING BLUE 0.947 0.898 0.049 Switzerland
07 Colorado PURPLE TRENDING BLUE 0.946 0.906 0.041 Switzerland
08 New York BLUE 0.946 0.888 0.058 Switzerland
09 North Dakota RED 0.946 0.874 0.074 Switzerland
10 Hawaii BLUE 0.944 0.902 0.041 Switzerland
11 Washington BLUE 0.944 0.904 0.041 Switzerland
12 Alaska RED 0.942 0.912 0.030 Switzerland
13 Vermont BLUE 0.941 0.885 0.053 Australia
14 Maryland BLUE 0.939 0.885 0.055 Ireland
15 Nebraska RED 0.937 0.889 0.048 Ireland
16 Wyoming RED 0.937 0.896 0.041 Germany
17 Delaware BLUE 0.935 0.897 0.038 Iceland
18 California BLUE 0.934 0.882 0.052 Iceland
19 Oregon BLUE 0.934 0.882 0.052 Sweden
20 Utah RED 0.934 0.896 0.038 Sweden
21 Illinois BLUE 0.933 0.883 0.050 Sweden
22 Virginia BLUE 0.933 0.882 0.051 Hong Kong
23 Wisconsin PURPLE FORMERLY BLUE 0.932 0.886 0.046 Singapore
24 Iowa PURPLE 0.931 0.885 0.046 Netherlands
25 South Dakota RED 0.931 0.870 0.061 Netherlands
26 Pennsylvania PURPLE FORMERLY BLUE 0.927 0.874 0.053 Canada
27 Kansas RED 0.926 0.887 0.039 Canada
28 Montana RED 0.923 0.876 0.047 United States
29 Rhode Island BLUE 0.922 0.876 0.046 United Kingdom
30 Maine BLUE 0.919 0.876 0.043 Finland
31 Ohio PURPLE TRENDING RED 0.917 0.874 0.043 New Zealand
32 Michigan PURPLE FORMERLY BLUE 0.916 0.877 0.039 Belgium
33 Texas RED 0.914 0.868 0.046 Liechtenstein
34 Arizona PURPLE 0.913 0.875 0.038 Belgium
35 Florida PURPLE 0.913 0.873 0.040 Liechtenstein
36 Idaho RED 0.911 0.872 0.039 Japan
37 Indiana RED 0.910 0.869 0.041 Japan
38 Missouri RED 0.910 0.871 0.039 Japan
39 North Carolina PURPLE TRENDING RED 0.909 0.861 0.048 Japan
40 Nevada BLUE 0.907 0.881 0.026 Austria
41 Georgia RED 0.906 0.862 0.044 Luxembourg
42 New Mexico BLUE 0.904 0.870 0.034 Luxembourg
43 Oklahoma RED 0.899 0.858 0.041 Slovenia
44 Tennessee RED 0.897 0.851 0.046 Slovenia
45 South Carolina RED 0.894 0.846 0.048 Slovenia
46 Louisiana RED 0.890 0.849 0.041 Spain
47 Kentucky RED 0.886 0.843 0.043 Czech Republic
48 Arkansas RED 0.883 0.839 0.044 Italy
49 Alabama RED 0.882 0.839 0.043 Italy
50 West Virginia RED 0.879 0.837 0.042 Estonia
51 Mississippi RED 0.866 0.825 0.041 Poland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U....ment_Index

[Eric the Green]

The American Human Development Report is a biennial report on human well-being in the United States produced by Measure of America. It follows the human development concept, which is the process of expanding the well-being of individuals to develop their full potential, by increasing opportunities in the arenas of health, education, and income. Similar to the global Human Development Report, published annually by the United Nations Development Programme, and the National Human Development Reports (NHDRs), the American Human Development Reports serve as advocacy tools to spur lively debates and mobilize support for action and change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_of_America

SCALES:
Rank, State/federal district on American HDI
POLITICS (my insertion)
2015/2016 values for 2016
Change compared to 2008/2009 values for 2005

1 Massachusetts BLUE 6.18 Decrease 0.19
2. Connecticut BLUE 6.17 Decrease 0.12
3 New Jersey BLUE 6.12 Decrease 0.02
4 Minnesota BLUE 6.10 Decrease 0.03
5 Maryland BLUE 5.94 Decrease 0.05
6 New Hampshire PURPLE 5.73 Decrease 0.06
7 Pennsylvania PURPLE 5.72 Increase 0.03
8 New York BLUE 5.66 Decrease 0.15
9 Colorado PURPLE 5.53 Decrease 0.05
10 Hawaii BLUE 5.53 Decrease 0.29
11 Oregon BLUE 5.42 Decrease 0.04
12 California BLUE 5.40 Decrease 0.22
13 Washington BLUE 5.40 Decrease 0.01
14 Rhode Island BLUE 5.38 Decrease 0.34
15 Vermont BLUE 5.31 Decrease 0.12
16 Illinois BLUE 5.31 Decrease 0.11
17 Delaware BLUE 5.22 Steady
18 Missouri RED 5.19 Increase 0.06
19 North Carolina PURPLE 5.17 Decrease 0.04
20 District of Columbia BLUE 5.11 Decrease 0.06
21 Alaska RED 5.06 Decrease 0.29
22 Iowa 5.03 PURPLE Steady
23 Utah 5.03 RED Increase 0.17
24 Kansas RED 4.96 Increase 0.03
25 Maine BLUE 4.93 Increase 0.09
26 North Dakota RED 4.90 Steady
27 Arizona PURPLE 4.89 Decrease 0.01
28 Virginia BLUE 4.87 Decrease 0.09
29 Wyoming RED 4.83 Increase 0.30
30 Florida PURPLE 4.82 Decrease 0.15
31 South Dakota RED 4.79 Increase 0.26
32 Michigan PURPLE 4.76 Decrease 0.37
33 Ohio PURPLE 4.71 Decrease 0.09
34 Texas RED 4.65 Increase 0.08
35 Nevada BLUE 4.63 Increase 0.09
36 Georgia RED 4.62 Decrease 0.10
37 Wisconsin PURPLE 4.59 Decrease 0.04
38 Nebraska RED 4.58 Increase 0.11
39 Indiana RED 4.56 Decrease 0.08
40 Montana RED 4.54 Increase 0.20
41 New Mexico BLUE 4.52 Increase 0.03
42 Idaho RED 4.50 Increase 0.13
43 South Carolina RED 4.35 Increase 0.08
44 Tennessee RED 4.22 Increase 0.11
45 Oklahoma RED 4.14 Increase 0.13
46 Louisiana RED 4.12 Increase 0.27
47 Alabama RED 4.04 Increase 0.07
48 Kentucky RED 4.02 Decrease 0.10
49 West Virginia RED 3.95 Increase 0.11
50 Arkansas RED 3.91 Increase 0.06
51 Mississippi RED 3.81 Increase 0.23

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U....ment_Index

Of course, the measurement depends on what you are looking for. If you want a "business-friendly" state with low taxes, that would be a different ranking!

Here's another ranking:
https://media.beam.usnews.com/69/4f/9ec3...s-2019.pdf

In the top 10 of this list, I count 6 blue states, 2 purple states and 2 red states
In the bottom 10 I count 1 blue state, 1 purple state and 8 red states

[Eric the Green]

Make no mistake about this. We now live in a society where 45% of the voting public want to overthrow our republic and empower a dictator, and disempower the congress that represents them. They want to impose upon us a fanatical, lying, scumbag dictator, because they are HOOKED on ideologies of hate and priviledge. They feel entitled to a Ronald Reagan clone in office; in fact, they want to keep a lying con-man shitface in office because he caters and panders to the conspiracy theories that they hold. 45% of the American people ARE truly deplorable. They "approve" of Trump's job performance. AND, they hold a much-lower and much MORE insulting opinion of we the 52% who don't approve, and threaten violence against us.

This Trump job performance consists in willful, categorical defiance of all congressional subpoenas, without which the people and the congress have no way to hold him accountable for the abuses of power which he demonstrably made. It consists in the use of his power to promote his own fortunes in elections without regard for the needs of national defense, American democracy, or legally-approved foreign policy. It consists of deliberate ignorance of science that proves that our country and world is in danger if it continues to rely on fossil fuels. It consists of deliberate stoking of racial hatreds to the point that hate crimes increase wherever he has spoken. It consists of deliberate policies to take away our rights, to swell our national debt, and to weaken protections against the rampant greedy behavior that threatens the lives of all Americans.

There is no precedent at all for this president's conduct. All previous presidents have recognized the right and proper role of the congress to oversee his conduct. He has placed himself above the law to a far greater extent than even Nixon, who turned over all requested information except the white house tapes (because he knew they contained the "smoking gun"). But the supreme court ruled unanimously that he must turn them over. Today's supreme court might not do this, because at least 4 and maybe 5 of its justices are beholden to the mad 45% of the people who are determined to overthrow our democracy and replace it with an empowered oligarchy whose leaders operate without any restraint except "the market." Our Senate will not remove Trump from office because it is beholden to the mad 45% and the money powers that support them.

Classic Xer and John Xenakis are representatives of this mad 45% here, and I don't mind at all that they post and discuss here. Without them we have no awareness of what the 45% say and believe, and we get no practice here in how to refute or oppose what they write. We always have adversaries in life that make us stronger.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-24-2020, 06:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Classic Xer and John Xenakis are representatives of this mad 45% here, and I don't mind at all that they post and discuss here. Without them we have no awareness of what the 45% say and believe, and we get no practice here in how to refute or oppose what they write. We always have adversaries in life that make us stronger.

Yah.  Without Classic and other conservatives on this site I would not be butting my head against a wall have come up with some of my ideas.  

[pbrower2a]

(01-24-2020, 06:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Make no mistake about this. We now live in a society where 45% of the voting public want to overthrow our republic and empower a dictator, and disempower the congress that represents them. They want to impose upon us a fanatical, lying, scumbag dictator, because they are HOOKED on ideologies of hate and privilege. They feel entitled to a Ronald Reagan clone in office; in fact, they want to keep a lying con-man shitface in office because he caters and panders to the conspiracy theories that they hold. 45% of the American people ARE truly deplorable. They "approve" of Trump's job performance. AND, they hold a much-lower and much MORE insulting opinion of we the 52% who don't approve, and threaten violence against us.

When that 45% (really 45.92% based on the 2016 Presidential election) erodes to about 45%, then Trump loses, if just barely in the Electoral College, and Republicans hold a bare 51-49 majority in the Senate. (I am guessing that Collins, Gardner, and McSally lose their Senate seats  but Jones loses the anomalous D seat in Alabama. Should Republicans try a re-match of Ray Moore against Doug Jones, then we have a 50-50 tie and the Democratic Vice-President decides such with his vote as President of the Senate. 

When that number slips to 44%, then Democrats pick up more electoral votes, going from perhaps 278 to 295 to 339  -- and probably Senate seats in Iowa, North Carolina, and Georgia. The demographic trends and simple aging are pushing Milennial adults into political influence -- and power. 

Quote:This Trump job performance consists in willful, categorical defiance of all congressional subpoenas, without which the people and the congress have no way to hold him accountable for the abuses of power which he demonstrably made. It consists in the use of his power to promote his own fortunes in elections without regard for the needs of national defense, American democracy, or legally-approved foreign policy. It consists of deliberate ignorance of science that proves that our country and world is in danger if it continues to rely on fossil fuels. It consists of deliberate stoking of racial hatreds to the point that hate crimes increase wherever he has spoken. It consists of deliberate policies to take away our rights, to swell our national debt, and to weaken protections against the rampant greedy behavior that threatens the lives of all Americans.

The more that people see of this, the more they will dislike it. Liberals are showing themselves less tolerant of lawlessness just at the very time that the Hard Right excuses a President who acts in contempt of law. This will make things much easier for liberals, even in unlikely places.  

Quote:There is no precedent at all for this president's conduct. All previous presidents have recognized the right and proper role of the congress to oversee his conduct. He has placed himself above the law to a far greater extent than even Nixon, who turned over all requested information except the white house tapes (because he knew they contained the "smoking gun"). But the supreme court ruled unanimously that he must turn them over. Today's supreme court might not do this, because at least 4 and maybe 5 of its justices are beholden to the mad 45% of the people who are determined to overthrow our democracy and replace it with an empowered oligarchy whose leaders operate without any restraint except "the market." Our Senate will not remove Trump from office because it is beholden to the mad 45% and the money powers that support them.

Even worse -- he has demanded that Congress excuse his despotic behavior. Worse, his Party has developed a short-sighted sycophancy toward him. Nixon at least knew that there was a stake in something more than his personality. Smoking gun? Donald Trump has an arsenal of those lying around. 

It could be that the moneyed elite that sees Donald Trump as its last best chance for establishing a pure plutocracy recognizes that time is running out. The Tea Party is shrinking as it ages. The Millennial Generation does not believe the broken promise of trickle-down economics.  Maybe these people see themselves in much the same position as did most Commies in most of central and Balkan Europe in 1989... they might as well leave in a free election than in a revolution. The economic elite has enough wealth with which to live very well without political power.  

Quote:Classic Xer and John Xenakis are representatives of this mad 45% here, and I don't mind at all that they post and discuss here. Without them we have no awareness of what the 45% say and believe, and we get no practice here in how to refute or oppose what they write. We always have adversaries in life that make us stronger.

It's better to know what  that elite believes, however distressing such might be.

[bjoh249]

Except Europe are not socialist societies. They have market economies alongside strong welfare states.