Gap in life expectancy in U.S. growing

  • News
  • Thread starter fourier jr
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Gap Life
In summary: Americans has grown by a third since the early 1990s. They base their findings on an analysis of social and economic conditions in every county, using census data. America's life expectancy at birth is now 79.2 years, up from 73 years in 1980-1982. The gap between rich and poor Americans has grown by 4.5 years since 1998-2000. If you look at the 10 groups of equal population size, the life expectancy for the nation as a whole is up 3 years, but the life expectancy for the most affluent group has increased by 2.8 years.Gap in life expectancy in U.S. growing
  • #36
Schrodinger's Dog said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
drankin said:
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?
 
Last edited:
  • #38
Schrodinger's Dog said:
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).
 
  • #39
cristo said:
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?
 
  • #40
Schrodinger's Dog said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #41
russ_watters said:
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
 
Last edited:
  • #42
Yes, that's who Russ is talking about.
 
  • #43
drankin said:
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.
 
  • #44
Schrodinger's Dog said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #45
Schrodinger's Dog said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #46
drankin said:
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. :rolleyes:


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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #47
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.
 
  • #48
drankin said:
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. :smile:

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. :smile: I'd say I'm liberal on their scale.
 
Last edited:
  • #49
Schrodinger's Dog said:
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.
 
  • #50
mheslep said:
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? :smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #51
mheslep said:
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.
This piece is a few years old but the data presented is still relevant
The myth of economic mobility
Among the world's wealthy countries, the United States has both high average incomes and high poverty rates. Recent research by Bruce Bradbury (UNICEF) and Markus Jantti (Abo Akademi University in Finland), for example, found that the United States has more of its population living in poverty (20.7%) than does any other advanced economy. Poverty rates in most advanced economies were less than half those of the United States: Spain (10.3%), France (9.4%), Germany (8.5%), the Netherlands (6.5%), Belgium (5.7%), Denmark (4.9%), and Sweden (2.9%).
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_archive_07192000

The link includes economic mobility comparisons between the US and some leading EU countries and references the research it draws upon.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #52
I haven't been following this thread carefully, so someone may have already posted this:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/128568"

I don't think that any study can be done that would provide meaningful statistics for this thread. And yet the hate America first crowd will find what they are looking for in any statistic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #54
jimmysnyder said:
I haven't been following this thread carefully, so someone may have already posted this:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/128568"

I don't think that any study can be done that would provide meaningful statistics for this thread. And yet the hate America first crowd will find what they are looking for in any statistic.

I don't know if you meant me, I don't hate America, or Americans, in fact the reason I hang around this forum is because Americans are quite prevalent here, and they share a similar outlook and sense of humour. I've not traveled to the states, but I do have a few people I'd call long term internet friends who are American.

I don't like the way the Bush administration has looked to shape things atm. But as I said before, I don't really have any but political objections and your as free to determine your own system as anyone else, I don't feel the need to think I am right and everyone else is wrong. Just in case people are getting the impression that I'm a hater. :-p I'm equally scathing of my own government atm, so call it a somewhat unfavourable attitude to the style of government in my country and yours atm. Rather than the fact that I hate them or anyone.

Just in case anyone thinks I'm getting at them or their country personally.

I was going to say that economists can pretty much make any case given some statistics. So the same goes for those on both sides of the debate really.

If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion.

George Bernard Shaw.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #55
Poop-Loops said:
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!

I'm a homeless person. Street homeless (not a shelter baby). I don't have any cardboard to cover myself with.


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.

The rich are not getting rich at the expense of the poor.
 
  • #56
Poop-Loops said:
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.

What do you mean by feeding off the poor? I agree that the rich largely get rich from the labor of the poor, but this process benefits the poor as well as the rich, IMO.
 

Similar threads

  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
2
Views
660
  • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
156
Views
36K
  • General Discussion
Replies
28
Views
10K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
42
Views
6K
Replies
17
Views
3K
Back
Top