SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
According to a report by the Congressional Research Service (PDF hosted on Cloudflare; archived copy here),
Although life expectancy has generally been increasing over time in the United States, researchers have long documented that it is lower for individuals with lower socioeconomic status (SES) compared with individuals with higher SES. Recent studies provide evidence that this gap has widened in recent decades. For example, a 2015 study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) found that for men born in 1930, individuals in the highest income quintile (top 20%) could expect to live 5.1 years longer at age 50 than men in the lowest income quintile. This gap has increased significantly over time. Among men born in 1960, those in the top income quintile could expect to live 12.7 years longer than men in the bottom income quintile. This NAS study finds similar patterns for women: the life expectancy gap between the bottom and top income quintiles of women expanded from 3.9 years for the 1930 birth cohort to 13.6 years for the 1960 birth cohort.
Apparently, all the advances in medical science and healthy living that occurred during this rolling 30-year interval were visited upon the rich a lot more than on the poor.
According to a different study (open; DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.0918; archived copy here) in JAMA Internal Medicine,
[...] inequalities in life expectancy among counties are large and growing, and much of the variation in life expectancy can be explained by differences in socioeconomic and race/ethnicity factors, behavioral and metabolic risk factors, and health care factors.
In 2014, there was a spread of 20.1 years between the counties with the longest and shortest typical life spans based on life expectancy at birth.
—NPR
additional coverage:
- Boston Globe (about CRS report)
- WPVI-TV (about JAMA study)
- Time (about JAMA study; Javascript required)
- WESA-FM (about JAMA study)
- The Park Record (about JAMA study)
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 29 2017, @04:50AM (3 children)
And they contribute far less to the world than proper capitalist nations as well. They are parasites living off the creations of capitalism. Compare what the norse nations have given to the world since adopting socialist policies as opposed to what capitalist nations have. What advances have Cuba or Russia given the world since they started sucking Marx's cock? I'm not the blind one here.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday May 29 2017, @01:43PM (2 children)
If, by contributing far less, you mean they, per capita: output less CO2, rape fewer fisheries into oblivion, and create fewer toxic waste dumps, then, yes, they are contributing "less" - I wouldn't say "far less," but I would say that they are creating and contributing, one example that immediately comes to mind is Linus' "stone soup" computer operating system that I'm using right now.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 29 2017, @02:32PM (1 child)
That's some confirmation bias on an epic scale there. Nearly every modern amenity you take for granted today is a product of U.S. innovation. Including the personal computer that you run good ole Linus's operating system on and the worldwide network you're using to shit talk the people who created it. That medical care that you bitch about being too expensive and that other nations take advantage of? Mostly us. Advances in cleaner petroleum-powered vehicles and fully electrical vehicles? Us again.
Your focusing entirely on negatives while dismissing the unprecedented in human history pile of positives doesn't make you insightful, it just makes you a dishonest shithead.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday May 29 2017, @08:23PM
Ever travel outside the US, get some perspective on the world from the other side of the borders?
We are not 100% responsible for 100% of innovation and invention. Hell, we got our rockets from Germans, our nukes from the Jews (o.k. stretching here)... Yes, the US nurtured these guys and let them do their thing a little faster than they could have elsewhere, back then. Back in the day of Bell labs, 20% of income reinvested to R&D, etc.
Things have changed in the US, it's no longer as friendly to innovation as it used to be. There's still lots of money here, funding innovators like Rocket Labs in New Zealand for one example, but there's also lots of money accumulating in China, and no small amount of innovation happening there these days. There's plenty of copycat work, but there's also independent engineering and manufacturing that's surpassing US capabilities in many areas.
Are we good? Sure, we're good - but not as good as we used to be, and the rest of the world is catching up fast. If Europe hadn't ground itself into hamburger, twice, we wouldn't be in nearly the competitive position that we are - they had the knowledge, they just screwed up the politics in a big way. The US is actually very lucky that we fought our Civil War before weapons got better.
🌻🌻 [google.com]