News Gap in life expectancy in U.S. growing

[fourier jr]

Gap in life expectancy in U.S. growing

By Robert Pear
Published: March 23, 2008

WASHINGTON: New government research has found "large and growing" disparities in life expectancy for richer and poorer Americans, paralleling the growth of income inequality in the past two decades.

Life expectancy for the nation as a whole has increased, the researchers said, but affluent people have experienced greater gains, and that, in turn, has caused a widening gap.

One of the researchers, Gopal Singh, a demographer at the Department of Health and Human Services, said "the growing inequalities in life expectancy" mirrored trends in infant mortality and in death from heart disease and certain cancers. Singh said last week that federal officials had found "widening socioeconomic inequalities in life expectancy" at birth and at every age level.

He and another researcher, Mohammad Siahpush, a professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, developed an index to measure social and economic conditions in every county, using census data on education, income, poverty, housing and other factors. Counties were then classified into 10 groups of equal population size.

In 1980-1982, Singh said, people in the most affluent group could expect to live 2.8 years longer than people in the most deprived group (75.8 versus 73 years). By 1998-2000, the difference in life expectancy had increased to 4.5 years (79.2 versus 74.7 years) and it continues to grow, he said.

I especially like this part:

The difference between poor black men and affluent white women was more than 14 years (66.9 years versus 81.1 years).

& lastly, universal health care would probably reverse the trend:

Lower-income people are less likely to have health insurance, so they are less likely to receive checkups, screenings, diagnostic tests, prescription drugs and other types of care.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/23/america/health.php

 

[russ_watters]

So... life expectancy is increasing across all income groups. Good news!

 

[wildman]

Russ, I like your optimism. I don't think it is always justified but someone has to stick up for the bright side.

 

[Poop-Loops]

So... life expectancy is increasing across all income groups. Good news!

Uh huh. Just like you can tell a homeless person that at least he has some cardboard to cover himself with. 100 years ago, he wouldn't have had any cardboard!

If you wanted to go by "well it's still better than it was before" then I could easily go to your house and enslave you and claim that since I didn't rape your wife, you had it better than 2000 years ago, so it's legal.

You aren't dealing with absolute numbers here, but relative numbers. Uprisings don't start because everybody is prospering, they start because the rich are getting much richer than the poor. At the expense of the poor.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Everything looks brighter under a conservative perspective, that's why they live longer, it's not the money, the environmental factors or access to better healthcare, it's the glass half full attitude.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Uprisings don't start because everybody is prospering, they start because the rich are getting much richer than the poor. At the expense of the poor.

Don't be an ass.

Since this was about longevity, not salary, are you arguing that the rich are somehow living longer at the expense of the poor? If so, could you explain how that's coming about?

Also, would you think it would be an improvement to go back to the situation 20 years ago, where both rich and poor lived less long, but the gap was smaller?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Since this was about longevity, not salary, are you arguing that the rich are somehow living longer at the expense of the poor? If so, could you explain how that's coming about?

Also, would you think it would be an improvement to go back to the situation 20 years ago, where both rich and poor lived less long, but the gap was smaller?

The lack of healthcare for 1/6th of the US population that means they only get treated for life threatening illnesses, crime, poverty, drug abuse amongst the poor. Lack of quality education exacerbating their social problems. If you compare the US life expectancy to Europe, yours is terrible, really terrible.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The lack of healthcare for 1/6th of the US population that means they only get treated for life threatening illnesses, crime, poverty, drug abuse amongst the poor.

Evidence for this? It's a good story, but it's not what Singh and Siahpush show. If this were the case, there would be a clear separation between the bottom 1/6 and top 5/6, and there isn't. Between the 1st and 2nd decile, you have 24% of the difference between 1st and 10th. Between the 1st and 3rd, you have 31%.

Lack of quality education exacerbating their social problems. If you compare the US life expectancy to Europe, yours is terrible, really terrible.

Mine? What evidence do you have that I am a US Citizen?

Singh and Siahpush don't discuss Europe, but they do discuss Canada. Canada has a 3.3 year difference in average lifespan between their 1st and 5th quintiles; the equivalent US number is (assuming I calculated this right; the authors don't make such a comparison easy) 3.1.

You didn't answer my question - would it be better to return to the conditions of 1980's, where there was more lifespan equity, but it was smaller in all groups?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Evidence for this? It's a good story, but it's not what Singh and Siahpush show. If this were the case, there would be a clear separation between the bottom 1/6 and top 5/6, and there isn't. Between the 1st and 2nd decile, you have 24% of the difference between 1st and 10th. Between the 1st and 3rd, you have 31%.
Mine? What evidence do you have that I am a US Citizen?

Singh and Siahpush don't discuss Europe, but they do discuss Canada. Canada has a 3.3 year difference in average lifespan between their 1st and 5th quintiles; the equivalent US number is (assuming I calculated this right; the authors don't make such a comparison easy) 3.1.

You didn't answer my question - would it be better to return to the conditions of 1980's, where there was more lifespan equity, but it was smaller in all groups?

You haven't been paying attention lately all that evidence is in the WHO report on health care providers. Every part of it. I'll link it if you like? Or you could just find a thread on free health care/universal health care.

Are you seriously telling me though that the US social mobility is better than in Europe, because you'd be dead wrong. I think the burden on you is to prove that. And why compare to Canada anyway? Who cares? When you have one of the lowest social mobilities in the advanced Western world, why look at the bottom runners.

I didn't ask the question because it is not the case, in Europe, so there's no point.

 

[russ_watters]

Uh huh. Just like you can tell a homeless person that at least he has some cardboard to cover himself with. 100 years ago, he wouldn't have had any cardboard!

If you wanted to go by "well it's still better than it was before" then I could easily go to your house and enslave you and claim that since I didn't rape your wife, you had it better than 2000 years ago, so it's legal.

Huh? Should I point out the fallacy of comparing a 2000 year old disparity with a 20 year old disparity, or is that too obvious?

 

[russ_watters]

You didn't answer my question - would it be better to return to the conditions of 1980's, where there was more lifespan equity, but it was smaller in all groups?

I think this question is worthy of an answer.

And I'll broaden it: are people so greedy that they would rather be poorer than see someone get richer faster than they? Maybe they are, but is it right to be that greedy?

 

[russ_watters]

If you compare the US life expectancy to Europe, yours is terrible, really terrible.

Yes, could you give us the comparison, please? I'd like to see just how "terrible" it is.

Ahh, too easy. Here's a chart: http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa042000b.htm

It isn't ranked, it is alphabetical, so the easiest comparison is between the US and the UK:

United Kingdom 77.7 77.2
United States 77.1 76.1

That disparity is what you consider "terrible"?

Considering the obstacle that we've had to overcome to get where we are today (slavery), I'd say we're doing pretty damn good.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I think this question is worthy of an answer.

And I'll broaden it: are people so greedy that they would rather be poorer than see someone get richer faster than they? Maybe they are, but is it right to be that greedy?

I'd rather be poorer than see people poorer than me being held back by poverty. But then I don't live in the US, so I don't have the same mentality as some people.

 

[russ_watters]

I'd rather be poorer than see people poorer than me being held back by poverty.

That doesn't make any sense. Could you explain it further, please?

It also doesn't answer the question -- though it does imply that you would prefer the poor to have a lower life expectancy and the rich to have a much lower life expectancy.

 

[russ_watters]

I know it's a wik, but I was looking for historical data for other countries and found this:

In France, significant differences in life expectancy between different racial and ethnic groups have persisted, though they have lessened somewhat. Poverty, in particular, has a very substantial effect on life expectancy. In the United Kingdom life expectancy in the wealthiest areas is ten years longer than the poorest areas and the gap appears to be increasing as life expectancy for the prosperous continues to increase while in more deprived communities there is little increase.[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

We've apparently let an implied claim slide: the implication that European countries do not have such a disparity. It would appear that the "problem" is not unique to the US.

Here's the actual study for the UK: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4117696

Their baseline is only ~8 years, but they note the same "problem" (and they consider it a problem).

I'll reiterate my previous implied position: the increasing gap is a result of the rubber-band theory of economics (that's my analogy, by the way). By pulling on one end of the rubber band, you pull the entire rubber band. The result is an improvement for everyone, but an increasing gap. This is a natural result of economic prosperity and not something to be "fixed", as attempting to "fix" it will interfere with the prosperity growth for everyone.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

That doesn't make any sense. Could you explain it further, please?

It also doesn't answer the question -- though it does imply that you would prefer the poor to have a lower life expectancy and the rich to have a much lower life expectancy.

It said the opposite of that. It said I'd like more people to have a life expectancy in line with the best countries in Europe. Not an elite few. But then I pretty much think that is an anathema to you from the gist of your posts so far?

Europe has higher average life expectancy than in the US, I'm not interested in playing which tiny minority gets to live longer than which other. The US situation is dire IMO.

 

[russ_watters]

Expanding on the concept of inequality, there is a great video clip somewhere around here of a rogue economist (Sweedish, I think) giving a speech and showing an animation of China's income equality. That's where I got the rubber band idea. It shows graphically and with utter clarity how economic prosperity creates inequality while simultaneously lifting billions out of extreme poverty. Great animation notwithstanding, here's some of the raw data: http://www.gwu.edu/~econ270/Taejoon.html#1.%20Analyzing%20the%20widening%20gap

 

[russ_watters]

It said the opposite of that. It said I'd like more people to have a life expectancy in line with the best countries in Europe. Not an elite few.

So you are refusing to answer the question, then? Socioeconomic status doesn't magically just jump from one plateau to another. It has to progress there. What you suggest is pure fantasy.

Europe has higher average life expectancy than in the US, I'm not interested in playing which tiny minority gets to live longer than which other. The US situation is dire IMO.

You're saying that a gap of 1 year between England and the US is a "dire situation"? Are you for real?

Wait, what is "dire" about the situation - the gap or the fact that the US's average life expectancy is 1 year less than Englands (for example)?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

So you are refusing to answer the question, then? Socioeconomic status doesn't magically just jump from one plateau to another. It has to progress there. What you suggest is pure fantasy. You're saying that a gap of 1 year between England and the US is a "dire" situation? Are you for real?

No I think I'm saying that America is a terrible place to live if you want to experience equality of wealth in any sort of time frame. And that if you want the American dream I'd move to Europe. That's what I'm saying, because social mobility in the US just plain sucks, and your health isn't going to be much better off. And education also just doesn't measure up to European countries, except at University.

Basically if you want more people to do well, not elitism, then don't look at the US as an example, look at say Japan, or Germany, or somewhere else.

But this is due to having an almost antithetical view of politics from each other I think.

 

[russ_watters]

Here is an interesting quick article that points to the homicide rate as being the largest factor in the gap in the US - which is why the gap decreased substantially from 1993 to 2003:

The Black-White Life Expectancy Gap 1993-2003 – Men
The shrinkage in the gap in life expectancy between black and white men was large from 1993-2003. The gap decreased 25% (from a gap of 8.44 years in 1993 to a gap of 6.33 years in 2003). Nearly all of this gap was caused by an improvement in the life expectancy of young black men (ages 15-49), which resulted in a 2 year reduction of the gap. This gap was seen in a reduction of homicide (-0.6 years), HIV deaths (-0.6 years) and injuries (-0.3 years).

http://longevity.about.com/od/longevitystatsandnumbers/a/black_white_gap.htm

 

[russ_watters]

No I think I'm saying that America is a terrible place to live if you want to experience equality of wealth in any sort of time frame.

Fair enough. I think most Americans would agree that the US is not a place for those who don't want the freedom to prosper on their own. And it is not a place to live if the prosperity of others causes you envy. The existence of Bill Gates does not give me any pain, despite how much richer he is than me. I like that I'm free to succeed on my own and think it is cool that he's been able to do what he has. Freedom and forced redistribution of wealth contradict each other.

The rest of your post is just your typical random anti-US ranting. It has nothing to do with this thread. I'm glad you like your country better than the US. You should! Otherwise, you should move! And I really don't care. The age of nationalism is over. You don't need to prove anything (unless you need to prove it to yourself due to some insecurity).

And now you are completely ignoring the statistics and information that show this entire thread is just a farce. The idea that there is a life expectancy gap problem in the US that is unique to the US is a myth (created here!).

 

[Vanadium 50]

You're saying that a gap of 1 year between England and the US is a "dire situation"?

It's interesting that a year gap between the US and the UK is dire, but not the year gap between the UK and France or the 1 year gap between France and Switzerland.

If one is going to interpret effects that are this small, one probably has to do a demographic adjustment for the countries in question. The odds of living to 80 given that you have already lived to 60 are different than the odds of living to 80 given that you have already lived to 20. I don't know if this serves to expand or compress the effect being discussed.

 

[Evo]

As I've said before, you have to adjust for infant mortality. When you look at life expectancy after the age of one, the US is among the highest.

https://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/333/18/1232?ck=nck

While the United States reports every case of infant mortality, many other countries do not. For example, a 2006 artilce in U.S. News & World Report states, "First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country." [2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality

 

[Gokul43201]

Since this was about longevity, not salary, are you arguing that the rich are somehow living longer at the expense of the poor? If so, could you explain how that's coming about?

A hand wavy, plausibility argument for the converse: In the short term (t ~ few years) the total resources available towards health care is roughly a conserved quantity. If some of the resources used by the wealthy are diverted to the poor, this will result in a decrease in LE for the rich and an increase in LE for the poor. In fact, one could argue further that, due to diminishing returns, so long as the amount of resources forcibly diverted still left the wealthier folk healthier, the increase in LE gained by the poor would exceed the decrease in LE felt by the rich.

Now this is not to say that the converse has indeed occurred, but merely to argue that a different form of resource allocation could result in greater longevity for the poor at the expense of the rich. I'm also not arguing for the morality behind such an allocation.

Also, would you think it would be an improvement to go back to the situation 20 years ago, where both rich and poor lived less long, but the gap was smaller?

I don't. But I also don't see the point of this question. Is anyone talking about going back to the days of poorer health? I think people are suggesting that governments should find it in their interests to look out for the interests of the lowest classes, and that this can be achieved by some redistribution scheme that does not result in a downward trend in LE with time.

I think this question is worthy of an answer.

And I'll broaden it: are people so greedy that they would rather be poorer than see someone get richer faster than they? Maybe they are, but is it right to be that greedy?

Again, this is the same irrelevant proposition. No one wants the poor to die faster than they were yesterday.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Fair enough. I think most Americans would agree that the US is not a place for those who don't want the freedom to prosper on their own. And it is not a place to live if the prosperity of others causes you envy. The existence of Bill Gates does not give me any pain, despite how much richer he is than me. I like that I'm free to succeed on my own and think it is cool that he's been able to do what he has. Freedom and forced redistribution of wealth contradict each other.

The rest of your post is just your typical random anti-US ranting. It has nothing to do with this thread. I'm glad you like your country better than the US. You should! Otherwise, you should move! And I really don't care. The age of nationalism is over. You don't need to prove anything (unless you need to prove it to yourself due to some insecurity).

And now you are completely ignoring the statistics and information that show this entire thread is just a farce. The idea that there is a life expectancy gap problem in the US that is unique to the US is a myth (created here!).

You mean where greed is the most important virtue in your nation, where people judge others based on their income and what they have, not what they are. Yeah thanks but no thanks. If I had to listen to people like you go on about how great your country is because of how much money you can make, I'd quickly I think move somewhere which wasn't obsessed with wealth. Hehe seriously, I know not everyone is, but the justification for anything, pretty much boils down to money in your eyes. I can't stand that as a political ideal, it makes me feel sick. The US is sliding ever more close to an elitocracy. It's sad really. Get a decent president not a muppet.

As for your life expectancies they are lower, your health service is rubbish and you social mobility sucks. That say it all really. The wealthiest nation in the world means nothing to me when 50% of your wealth is in the hands of a tiny percentage of your population, it's a lousy system you have, that's I think another reason why Europeans dislike American ideals. Their ideals are all out of whack with what decent human beings think.

 

[Poop-Loops]

Since this was about longevity, not salary, are you arguing that the rich are somehow living longer at the expense of the poor? If so, could you explain how that's coming about?

I'm, sorry, I was under the impression that if you can operate a computer you can make small mental leaps in logic. I apologize.

Rich get rich off of the poor. This is a fact. Not all and not all the time, but a good chunk of becoming rich is by feeding off of the poor.

More money = better healthcare.

No money =

Also, would you think it would be an improvement to go back to the situation 20 years ago, where both rich and poor lived less long, but the gap was smaller?

Also, would you think it would be an improvement to stop using false dichotomies?

Better =\= Good.

 

[Poop-Loops]

Huh? Should I point out the fallacy of comparing a 2000 year old disparity with a 20 year old disparity, or is that too obvious?

Wait wait wait, you make a claim that since things are better than before, they are good and leave it at that, and then try to "point out" an obvious flaw in my analogy?

edit: how come images don't work here?

 

[drankin]

No I think I'm saying that America is a terrible place to live if you want to experience equality of wealth in any sort of time frame. And that if you want the American dream I'd move to Europe. That's what I'm saying, because social mobility in the US just plain sucks, and your health isn't going to be much better off. And education also just doesn't measure up to European countries, except at University.

Basically if you want more people to do well, not elitism, then don't look at the US as an example, look at say Japan, or Germany, or somewhere else.

But this is due to having an almost antithetical view of politics from each other I think.

You will have to give an example to demonstrate that social mobility sucks in the US. What do you mean by "social" anyway? Are you talking income? If you are, you might find it interesting to note that around 80% of America's millionairs are first generation! That says a lot about income mobility (if that is what you mean by social mobility). Health care is a separate issue and somewhat exaggerated anyway, IMO.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

You will have to give an example to demonstrate that social mobility sucks in the US. What do you mean by "social" anyway? Are you talking income? If you are, you might find it interesting to note that around 80% of America's millionairs are first generation! That says a lot about income mobility (if that is what you mean by social mobility). Health care is a separate issue and somewhat exaggerated anyway, IMO.

I mean from poor to rich it's harder to climb the ladder. It's something that has been somewhat moving into stagnation amongst the poorer people and even the middle classes aren't as mobile as once they were, in fact only those in the higher percentiles of wealth appear seldom to move down and nearly always to move up consolidating there wealth. Now I know this tends to happen under Republicans, and apologise for the rant. I don't hate Americans just the neocons and the far right conservatives, as a liberal they tend to make me uneasy. Actually I got this form an Economist article that was claiming the US was becoming more of an meritocracy than ever before. I'll try and dig it out.

Hmm unfortunately it's subscriber only and mine lapsed, nm.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_SDVJTVV&CFID=329078&CFTOKEN=22349072

Here's the link though. For any who can read it. That link is about to say "but" by the way.

As for healthcare it maybe somewhat spun, but it's big news, and that's not all spin.

 

[drankin]

I mean from poor to rich it's harder to climb the ladder. It's something that has been somewhat moving into stagnation amongst the poorer people and even the middle classes aren't as mobile as once they were, in fact only those in the higher percentiles of wealth appear seldom to move down and nearly always to move up consolidating there wealth. Now I know this tends to happen under Republicans, and apologise for the rant. I don't hate Americans just the neocons and the far right conservatives, as a liberal they tend to make me uneasy. Actually I got this form an Economist article that was claiming the US was becoming more of an elitocracy than ever before. I'll try and dig it out.

That simply isn't the truth. I grew up poor, like many I know, and have moved up to upper middle class. There is nothing to prevent anyone from doing the same thing in this country. I have the opportunity to become "wealthy" (whatever your definition is) if I choose to pursue that goal. You are simply wrong on this point. As far as social classes, the way I understand it in Europe, this much more difficult. The class structure in Europe is much more defined and difficult to break through. SD, you are wrong on this point, I consider myself an example.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

That simply isn't the truth. I grew up poor, like many I know, and have moved up to upper middle class. There is nothing to prevent anyone from doing the same thing in this country. I have the opportunity to become "wealthy" (whatever your definition is) if I choose to pursue that goal. You are simply wrong on this point. As far as social classes, the way I understand it in Europe, this much more difficult. The class structure in Europe is much more defined and difficult to break through. SD, you are wrong on this point.

Er no it isn't I think that's the point, it isn't easier to go from poor to middle class. And class structure isn't really the issue it was, I admit though in the UK that has changed, and under a labour and traditionally socialist government? Did we learn nothing from Thatcher, are we still suffering from her "greed is good", rhetoric and policies, I think so. The sub culture of the chav, the lack of decent education, the gap widening between rich and poor. We are becoming more American and though you may find this hard to believe, a lot of us aren't happy about that. We have the worst education outside of Eastern Bloc Europe, our healthcare was practically destroyed under Thatcher, and out University education has gone from nearly 50% of the population to much less. Average debt after University is now over £23,000 pounds. And now we're a nation of debtors anyway.

 

[drankin]

Er no it isn't I think that's the point, it isn't easier to go from poor to middle class. And class structure isn't really the issue it was, I admit though in the UK that has changed, and under a labour and traditionally socialist government? Did we learn nothing from Thatcher, are we still suffering from her "greed is good", rhetoric and policies, I think so. The sub culture of the chav, the lack of decent education, the gap widening between rich and poor. We are becoming more American and though you may find this hard to believe, a lot of us aren't happy about that. We have the worst education outside of Eastern Bloc Europe, our healthcare was practically destroyed under Thatcher, and out University education has gone from nearly 50% of the population to much less. Average debt after University is now over £23,000 pounds. And now we're a nation of debtors anyway.

SD, it's not supposed to be "easy" to move from poor to middle class, or middle class to rich, or poor to rich. If it were everyone would be rich. That isn't even worth arguing. You have to work for it. Noone is going to give it to you. But, in this country you have the opporunity to do it if you are willing to do the work. Noone is stopping you from succeeding in the US. This IS the land of opportunity. I imagine it has to be somewhat true in Europe as well. To what extent I don't know but I do know you CAN do it here in America. To say otherwise is simply false. I'm a living example.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

SD, it's not supposed to be "easy" to move from poor to middle class, or middle class to rich, or poor to rich. If it were everyone would be rich. That isn't even worth arguing. You have to work for it. Noone is going to give it to you. But, in this country you have the opporunity to do it if you are willing to do the work. Noone is stopping you from succeeding in the US. This IS the land of opportunity. I imagine it has to be somewhat true in Europe as well. To what extent I don't know but I do know you CAN do it here in America. To say otherwise is simply false. I'm a living example.

Except your class. Anecdotal evidence is meaningless. I realize what I am saying is a form of socialism but Europe is more socialist and IMO better for it, we value more than just wealth. We value a leveller playing field to start with.

 

[cristo]

our University education has gone from nearly 50% of the population to much less.

Personally, I think this is a good thing. The government has said that it wants 50% of the population to go to university, but do even 50% of the population stay on at sixth form? Probably not. Further, the way that I can see this happening is by more of the polytechnics taking on more students to study "media" or "gambling studies" or even "David Beckham studies." Do we really want to devalue a degree in this way? No.

As for your point of the average student owing £23,000 (which, I imagine, is due to the new top up fees, since I don't owe that much and had the full loan for four years): this is nothing compared to the US!

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Personally, I think this is a good thing. The government has said that it wants 50% of the population to go to university, but do even 50% of the population stay on at sixth form? Probably not. Further, the way that I can see this happening is by more of the polytechnics taking on more students to study "media" or "gambling studies" or even "David Beckham studies." Do we really want to devalue a degree in this way? No.

As for your point of the average student owing £23,000 (which, I imagine, is due to the new top up fees, since I don't owe that much and had the full loan for four years): this is nothing compared to the US!

Well I agree actually, I think the new idea of letting students do vocational qualifications is much better than forcing them into an educational choice they don't want or need. GCSE's and A' levels aren't the b all, let's not forget, apprenticeships, certifcates and so on. I meant much less people who want University education can actually afford it now, so fewer people who are able are able.

And yes, education is definitely a privilege over there, not a right. It's definitely harder to get a decent education I think, at University level? Love to see any evidence to the contrary?

 

[drankin]

Well I agree actually, I think the new idea of letting students do vocational qualifications is much better than forcing them into an educational choice they don't want or need. GCSE's and A' levels aren't the b all, let's not forget, apprenticeships, certifcates and so on. I meant much less people who want University education can actually afford it now, so fewer people who are able are able.

And yes, education is definitely a privilege over there, not a right. It's definitely harder to get a decent education I think, at University level? Love to see any evidence to the contrary?

Well, speaking of income classes, YOU DON'T NEED to attend a University to attain a desired income level. But, if one has the mind and work ethic, you can get a full ride scholarship through Harvard as my friends daughter has. Otherwise, you are GAURANTEED a low interest student loan to cover your costs to ANY state University. It certainly isn't hard to take that loan, though paying it off is another story. So, no, I have to disagree with you there as well. You are wrong, SD.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Well, speaking of income classes, YOU DON'T NEED to attend a University to attain a desired income level. But, if one has the mind and work ethic, you can get a full ride scholarship through Harvard as my friends daughter has. Otherwise, you are GAURANTEED a low interest student loan to cover your costs to ANY state University. It certainly isn't hard to take that loan, though paying it off is another story. So, no, I have to disagree with you there as well. You are wrong, SD.

OK tell me the number of people who want or are capable of achieving University education who actually get it in the US. And then compare it to the UK? Are they the same?

The UK is a bad example anyway, we've run our education into the ground by adopting our policies that reflect: no one left behind, testing everything up the whing wang and ignoring the real issues, I think you'll find better countries in Europe. But then your education still sucks at the pre University level compared to Europe, which is all I said.

If you're saying that good education isn't related to income, then I'm afraid you've lost me there?

 

[cristo]

I meant much less people who want University education can actually afford it now, so fewer people who are able are able.

One is now able to take an extra tuition fee loan on top of the student loan, so I think it is easier for people with little money to attend university than it was when you have to pay tuition fees out of the student loan.

And yes, education is definitely a privilege over there, not a right. It's definitely harder to get a decent education I think, at University level? Love to see any evidence to the contrary?

I wouldn't say it was a privilege (it's at least no more of a privilege in the US than it is here) but it does indeed cost more (in general).

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

One is now able to take an extra tuition fee loan on top of the student loan, so I think it is easier for people with little money to attend university than it was when you have to pay tuition fees out of the student loan.

I wouldn't say it was a privilege (it's at least no more of a privilege in the US than it is here) but it does indeed cost more (in general).

OK OK, it's getting better again. But I'm not to pleased with the level of education pre University. It's sliding into US territory, the worst in Europe, except the Eastern Bloc?

 

[drankin]

If you're saying that good education isn't related to income, then I'm afraid you've lost me there?

I did not say it is not related, I said it is not necessary to have a University level education in order to achieve an income goal. It certainly can help but does not guarantee anything. I believe it is safe to say that most small business owners do not have a University degree. It is not a requirement in order to be an independant business owner or to incorporate a business. There are very few paid positions (like doctors, lawyers, professional athelet and a handful of other professions) that allow one to be wealthy. You are not likely to become wealthy working for others. It typically requires one to have started a business of some kind.

 

[Azael]

Expanding on the concept of inequality, there is a great video clip somewhere around here of a rogue economist (Sweedish, I think) giving a speech and showing an animation of China's income equality. That's where I got the rubber band idea. It shows graphically and with utter clarity how economic prosperity creates inequality while simultaneously lifting billions out of extreme poverty. Great animation notwithstanding, here's some of the raw data: http://www.gwu.edu/~econ270/Taejoon.html#1.%20Analyzing%20the%20widening%20gap

Sounds like something Hans Rosling would show. Not in this clip but maby you recognise if its the same guy.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/92

 

[Gokul43201]

Yes, that's who Russ is talking about.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I did not say it is not related, I said it is not necessary to have a University level education in order to achieve an income goal. It certainly can help but does not guarantee anything. I believe it is safe to say that most small business owners do not have a University degree. It is not a requirement in order to be an independant business owner or to incorporate a business. There are very few paid positions (like doctors, lawyers, professional athelet and a handful of other professions) that allow one to be wealthy. You are not likely to become wealthy working for others. It typically requires one to have started a business of some kind.

Is social class a good indicator of potential income and education, is your chance reduced according to where you start? If the answer is yes then you might have to look closely at why. But looking at the US it's easy to see why. Everything is about how much money you can make atm, it seems to me. It's all you hear talked about, the economy is slowing, how much will it cost, can we afford it, should we have to pay for the poor. Why should I have to pay for people who are too stupid to get their own health care, and so on.

I don't see how having a poorer education system than even England particularly helps that much either. It's all very well having the best Universities in the world, but if many people are inhibited from getting the education they need, or fulfilling their potential, then it means little.

Sure you can build up your own business, but that is the same anywhere in the modern world, that's ubiquitous, small businesses get tax incentives over here. My brother owns a small business, I'm well aware of what you can do without a degree although he got one p/t whilst running his business. But that is not really relevant to education, which is something that differs widely across the social divides.

I don't expect anyone to listen to me as what I am suggesting is socialist, but I do see it for what it is sometimes and that is "I'm all right Jack". Why should I have to pay for things when I've spent my whole life working to get what I've got? Well because you're a person with some sort of social responsibility, you had to struggle, what's wrong with giving people a hand up? Not giving lazy slobs a hand up, but people who really want to achieve but can't.

 

[mheslep]

Everything is about how much money you can make atm, it seems to me.

What are you basing this on? I'm unable to pull the Economist piece, but I don't believe it states everyone's greedy in America. That sounds more like Michael Moore. If one takes the time to read the history of and travel here you discover just how complex and diverse this country is, and that it mostly defies simplistic descriptions. Examples: largest Muslim population (9.5m) in the western world outside of a Muslim country; same with Jews (5.3m); of the 3000 killed in the WTC in 911 one-sixth were foreign nationals from 91 different countries; geography that you could spend several lifetimes exploring; by many measures the US federal and state governments are more socialist than some EU countries - Ireland for instance. [1]
Try 'de Tocqueville's Democracy in America instead of M. Moore.

Sure you can build up your own business, but that is the same anywhere in the modern world, that's ubiquitous,

No that varies widely around even the modern world. US/UK/Hong Kong for instance the time to license a small business is 5-10 days, in Spain its ~50 days and also in Spain/France if you hire someone they better be your spouse because its easier to divorce your spouse than to fire an employee [2].

... what's wrong with giving people a hand up?

Nothing, I applaud it when done freely, not so much when when one is forced to 'lend a hand'. I don't believe you can point to a socialist policy and claim that this necessarily reflects charity in the citizenry, though this may very well be the case. Its just as plausible to say: those that don't produce are using the power of the state to grant themselves largess from those who do produce (or did). We can only speculate which is more true.

With regards to the economics of state based or free market based systems we don't have speculate. There's much objective evidence there. In the case of health care I'm increasingly reading that health experts studying the issue internationally find that single payer systems are a dead end; namely that qualify suffers, innovation founders, or costs explode. The EU for instance is increasingly relying on privatized health care; Canada's high court recently threw out the law that banned private health care there because the public only system was clearly violating basic Canadian rights [3]. Given the US already spends $600B/yr now on its government based health care and costs are accelerating out of sight, people are wisely wary of going 'all in'.
[1] http://www.factbook.net/muslim_pop.php
[1] http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/jewpop.html
[1] http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/10/29/wtc.deaths/
[2] http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/topten.cfm
[2] http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/downloads/2008FiscalBurdenData.xls

[3] http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2005/2005scc35/2005scc35.html

124 We conclude, based on the evidence, that prohibiting health insurance that would permit ordinary Canadians to access health care, in circumstances where the government is failing to deliver health care in a reasonable manner, thereby increasing the risk of complications and death, interferes with life and security of the person as protected by s. 7 of the Charter.

 

[drankin]

Is social class a good indicator of potential income and education, is your chance reduced according to where you start? If the answer is yes then you might have to look closely at why. But looking at the US it's easy to see why. Everything is about how much money you can make atm, it seems to me. It's all you hear talked about, the economy is slowing, how much will it cost, can we afford it, should we have to pay for the poor. Why should I have to pay for people who are too stupid to get their own health care, and so on.

I'm don't see how having a poorer education system than even England particularly helps that much either. It's all very well having the best Universities in the world, but if many people are inhibited from getting the education they need, or fulfilling their potential, then it means little.

Sure you can build up your own business, but that is the same anywhere in the modern world, that's ubiquitous, small businesses get tax incentives over here. My brother owns a small business, I'm well aware of what you can do without a degree although he got one p/t whilst running his business. But that is not really relevant to education, which is something that differs widely across the social divides.

I don't expect anyone to listen to me as what I am suggesting is socialist, but I do see it for what it is sometimes and that is "I'm all right Jack". Why should I have to pay for things when I've spent my whole life working to get what I've got? Well because you're a person with some sort of social responsibility, you had to struggle, what's wrong with giving people a hand up? Not giving lazy slobs a hand up, but people who really want to achieve but can't.

I really not sure where you were going with this reply but as I said before, anyone can get into a University provided they satisfy the educational prerequisites. ANYONE. That myth is busted. You can't make people get an education. If they don't, their income will tend to show it. As you suggested, people with a higher education tend to have a higher income, and with that a better standard of living. In the US, you pretty much live in the class that you choose for yourself. If you don't agree with your standard of living, you have options to change that, ie. go back to school, start a business, whatever you want. Noone is poor due to oppression here.

Your points so far, regarding the US, don't seem to hold much water to me.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I really not sure where you were going with this reply but as I said before, anyone can get into a University provided they satisfy the educational prerequisites. ANYONE. That myth is busted. You can't make people get an education. If they don't, their income will tend to show it. As you suggested, people with a higher education tend to have a higher income, and with that a better standard of living. In the US, you pretty much live in the class that you choose for yourself. If you don't agree with your standard of living, you have options to change that, ie. go back to school, start a business, whatever you want. Noone is poor due to oppression here.

:lol:

Sorry but that is simply not true, social conditions prevent many people from receiving even the basic education to achieve entry into University. I'm sure the number of people going to University from Inglewood, is less than those going from Massachusetts, per capita, do you expect me to believe this is because of their respective abilities? Thus social mobility from poor to moderate is much slower than other European countries. You can achieve the American dream, you just have to wait on average much longer. Because the rich get richer, the moderately well off are stagnating and the poor are also stagnating or on average getting somewhat worse.

I honestly don't think some people are even capable of acknowledging the difference in performance at education of haves and have nots, because to them they don't even exist, nor do they care to do anything about it.

Your points so far, regarding the US, don't seem to hold much water to me.

Well that's because of a difference of political perspective. I'm afraid the same applies to Russ's points 72.5% of the time, I just can't get inside his head and figure out why he thinks the way he does? Doesn't make him wrong just makes him a conservative capitalist.

 

[drankin]

SD, I have no problem with the rich getting richer because as the Swede demonstrated in the video Russ shared with us, the poor are getting richer too. The whole world is getting richer, people are living longer, health care is getting better. The only thing you seem to be able to prove with any substance is your prejudice of the US. That's about it.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

SD, I have no problem with the rich getting richer because as the Swede demonstrated in the video Russ shared with us, the poor are getting richer too. The whole world is getting richer, people are living longer, health care is getting better. The only thing you seem to be able to prove with any substance is your prejudice of the US. That's about it.

That's not true though. Only the elite are getting richer off the backs of the poor in the rest of the world, which they exploit. So I fail to understand why that's a good thing?

I was right unfortunately some people just have 0 social awareness, or just couldn't give a toss about anyone but themselves though, that much is clear.

And of course my link is wrong because The Economist are big fat liars.

Have you ever noticed that every link Russ ever gives is from the national institute of rich economists/ bankers/ we are better than you get used to it corporation?

To be frank I got bored of reading them, although I still lazily glance through them to find out what a rich autocrat thinks about the lack of social ills in the world in his backyard, according to how you can manipulate the statistics. Or why the poor only have themselves to blame, socialism is evil and being nice to people is for the weak.

EDIT: Prejudice to the US system as it stands atm under George W Bush, let's please make that distinction, I doubt I'd be on this forum if I didn't like American people generally. In fact the diversity of opinion in the US or any country above a population of 1000 makes it impossible for the rational person to dislike a country. And let's also make it clear that I believe in self determination, so although I may not like it, it's perfectly fine. This is a disagreement of politics not personality. I may dislike Russel's or your politics, but how could I dislike you? I don't even know you well enough to say. For all I know if we met, we would get on like a house on fire. I dislike some of my best friends politics, I still like them as people. My friends run the gamete from outright socialist to liberal to right wing though. I'd say I'm liberal on their scale.

 

[mheslep]

Thus social mobility from poor to moderate is much slower than other European countries.

Can you back that up with anything?The Economist piece must provide a source for any such claim; you should be able to provide that here.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Can you back that up with anything?The Economist piece must provide a source for any such claim; you should be able to provide that here.

That is a source, have you thought of actually looking at the sources cited there? Can you tell me why the source is unacceptable? I presume you don't think The Economist is a credible paper?

Are you telling me that under the Republicans the commonest man is now better off and more easily able to move up the ladder? Because that'd be the first time that has happened in a while I would imagine, since that's not what they do generally.

See people keep throwing sources at me, which prove that life expectancy is lower, to some degree no matter how you want to fudge the statistics. And when I say it is lower they ignore me? So I'm not getting how this works? Is it lower or higher?