There is a middle ground where projects are ethically and considerately done in a reasonable amount of time, at a reasonable cost. This doesn't seem to be happening in either SF or China, but I can imagine it's happening in many places around the world.
The middle ground is also the middle between US and China, something like Germany.
I do meet Americans who moved to Europe but they also have to contend with various dissatisfaction. A dysfunctional and Kafka-esque bureaucracy is one of them, and the high tax + mediocre income + unfriendly laws on share grants, as well as a way too "socialist" system which doesn't recognize individual contribution much, is another huge factor that have led many people to reconsider their choices. If they have some particular reason, e.g. chronic medical condition, have a family and want more work-life balance etc., then sure, Europe might work better for them. But for a young single person Europe is actually nowhere that good at all.
I think eventually people just have to understand that there is no paradise on earth. Every place has its set of unique strengths and weaknesses and characteristics formed by their culture and history that are not replaceable. Romanticizing an "exotic" place too much will invariably lead to deviation from the reality and disillusionment in the end. Similarly, demonizing a place, be it China or the US, will also be very one-sided and biased. Only clear-headed objectivity will benefit you the most.
In my city, the reason why this happens is because municipal officials are corrupt, incompetent, and not held accountable. It has nothing to do with what you said.
Feel free to invite me. But it's not necessary. I've been on China's high speed rail system.
Its a huge accomplishment that our society isn't capable of producing.
I've also been on the one in Japan, Korea, Italy, France, Germany, and Belgium.
And then you projected that all of western civilization is in decline because the US hasn't prioritized high speed rail. Among other things, this completely ignores the countries within the "West" that have high speed rail as well.
That's what people are taking issue with, not that you pointed out that China has high speed rail.
We've been surpassed in PPP, Global Trade, Industrial Output etc. China's steel production is 1 billion tons a year, the US 80 million tons. They poured as much concrete in the last 10 years as we poured in the 20th century. In just a few years we will be surpassed by GDP and witin 25 years China's GDP will be double the United States.
China's rise is not disputed.
The other poster with the analogy about a child's height is 100% accurate.
China doesn't care. You do what you're told. If you complain too much, you disappear; if the project has an atrocious safety record, they are not reported and no such records exist (or blame a low-level official); if an entire neighborhood was destroyed without compensation, shut up and deal with it. You can get what you want, just how many bodies are you willing to bury to get it?
You need to destroy neighborhoods to built road infrastructure, though. This is because "I/O operations" on high-speed roads with massive bandwidth à-la-USA requires ungodly amounts of space.
Here is the infrastructure needed for high-speed rail : https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/FXD1-J00..., plus one train station per city. The switches can be built outside.
Here is the infrastructure needed for traditional highways: https://i0.wp.com/usa.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sit...
If the infrastructure that was built was not horribly inefficient due to an almost ideological opposition to mass transit, there wouldn't have been neighbourhoods destroyed wholesale, and the precedent leading to the gargantuan opposition we see right now would simply not be present.
You clearly misunderstand what the First Amendment is about. It's a restraint on government, not a restraint on everyone else.
Around 1865 we reached the conclusion that it is the duty of the Government to protect some people from having their freedom taken away by some other people. Since then the Constitution started imposing restraints not only on the ability of the Government to curtail your freedom, but also the ability of your fellow citizens to do so. And this is a good thing.
But lately we started regressing. I'm talking about the cancel culture.
Do you think that if one day a person were to be physically tarred and feathered by a crowd of puritans because of some perceived transgression, that is ok? But then if the tarring and feathering is in the digital world, and much more permanent (nothing is forgotten on the internet), is that ok?
The end result is that people learn there are some things you can say, some things you can't, and some things you must say.
I guess Hong Kong's problem is they just haven't experienced China's rail system yet. /s
Its actually not that hard and Chinese content platforms are a breath of fresh air
Me thinks you would be surprised at what works
The state there takes a paternal approach, like a literal parent, or teacher or school principle (or unit commander, or HR department). It isn’t that unrelatable, we all grew up in similar restrictions. When everyone agrees that is what the role of the state is, nobody is trying to be a freedom fighter to alter that
That's sort of like saying Chinese politics is a breath of fresh air because you don't have to worry about picking a side and hearing the various parties arguing with each other.
they have a heavily neutered internet and it is a pleasant experience
its a walled garden, at the country level, do you want a sticker because of your awareness of Beijing?
there is simply a life beyond imagining it as oppressive all the time, when the reality is that you just hang out in communities in your niche and you dont have to worry about it being randomly politicized. A large part of the mindshare in the west is trying to figure out how to do that, checking out the other internet is probably good for your mental health
If you consider car-centric society barbaric, you've never experience barbarism, or understand what the word even means. Hyperbole is not helpful.
Being factual and a little more subtle goes a long way.
I live in an urban area and enjoy not having to drive long distances (or at all) to run errands, but I don't see them as an extenstential threat to humanity as many posters here apparently do.
I still haven't figured it out.
Barbaric is a fun word, but one that would be easy to twist the other way. In one system you get to be crammed into a little train car with dozens of other people, in the other system you have some privacy and personal space and a seat...
Again, pros and cons all over the place... the US doesn't have good trains because it built other systems instead due to the point in time in which many of its cities developed, and they are "good enough" that most people would see little benefit from ripping it all up to replace it with trains.
It's worth noting too that "they make the trains run on time" is literally a cliche about certain types of government at this point, not some unique accomplishment.
If you have enough money for both options, then it's not surprising that the option which costs at least an order of magnitude more provides a slightly more comfortable seat.
The Chinese state can produce projects, but how valuable they are is often up for question; the Urumqi high speed line doesn't even make enough money to pay for the electricity to run the trains. https://www.ft.com/content/ca28f58a-955d-11e8-b747-fb1e803ee...
America's problem isn't with building new roads, it's with maintaining them.
Building new is easy. Let's see how China fares in 50 years when it has to maintain an aging infrastructure.
China executes at scale, but does not necessarily execute good things at scale.
/s
The West and China have different goals.
China's goal is to grow fast at all costs.
To use your street example, the West makes a great effort to listen to the views of all the people affected by the project, including people who live near and work near the project. The West will also do a study to make sure the environmental impact is acceptable. The West will also do a survey to make sure nothing of any historical or archaeological importance isn't affected. The West will put the project out to multiple bidders and make sure that minority-owned companies are represented in the project. Depending on the project, there may also be other studies and considerations.
China just does the project, and if it's done wrong or harms anyone, too bad. Get out of the way.
Different systems. Different philosophies.
One isn't better because it's "fast."