U.S. Life Expectancy May Have Peaked

[RandomGuy]

Christopher Wanjek
LiveScience's Bad Medicine Columnist
LiveScience.com
2 hours, 59 minutes ago

Researchers have found the unexpected in U.S. life expectancy: We might have peaked.

Life expectancy rates rose for most of Americans over the last four decades by about six years, from an average of about age 71 to age 77. Yet a sizeable portion of the population, mostly in rural regions, saw those modest gains level off and even reverse starting in the 1980s. This is in contrast to all other industrialized nations.

Nearly 20 percent of American women, in fact, experienced either stagnation or a decline in longevity, what researchers at Harvard School of Public Health and the University of Washington call a "reversal of fortunes."

A team led by Harvard's Majid Ezzati published these findings today in the online medical journal PLoS Medicine. The analysis - the first to look at mortality trends county by county - is based on mortality data from the National Center for Health Statistics and population data from the U.S. Census Bureau between 1959 and 2001.

Living large, and less
The findings are troublesome, the researchers said, because life expectancy, along with infant mortality, is a major indicator of the health of a nation. A decline in life expectancy, as is seen during turmoil such as war and famine, is a sign that health and social systems are failing.

This failing trend could easily spread to the rest of the nation, meaning that for the first time in the history of this country, parents will have lived longer than their children.

Hardest hit are regions in the Deep South, along the Mississippi River, in Appalachia and also the southern part of the Midwest reaching into Texas. The culprits - largely preventable with better diet and access to medical services - are diabetes, cancers and heart disease caused by smoking, high blood pressure and obesity.

Two Americas

The U.S. life expectancy already is nothing to brag about. The United States is the wealthiest country on earth, yet the life expectancy of its people is only about 78 years, which places us 41st on the 2008 CIA World Factbook list, behind Bosnia but still edging out Albania.

What the new analysis reveals is the reality of two Americas, one on par with most of Europe and parts of Asia, and another no different than a third world nation. For example, previous research has shown that the U.S. state of Georgia has a life expectancy and infant mortality rate similar to the impoverished Eastern European nation of Georgia. In Harlem, African American men are less likely to reach the age of 65 than men in Bangladesh, according to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The United States might still be the destination for complicated surgery and cutting-edge procedures, but for the most part it fails its poorest citizens, with about 36 million of them (12 percent of the population, according to the CIA World Factbook) living below the poverty line. As a result, the U.S. healthcare system ranks 37th on a list of 191 systems compiled by the World Health Organization.

Science can't increase life expectancy forever; good ol' inequality will trump it every time. The new longevity analysis should be a wake-up call for voters that this nation isn't No. 1. Maybe it doesn't need to be No. 1, but, given our vast resources, it would be nice to strive for something better than 41st place.

-------------------------------------------------------------

I was going to put in something like the bottom paragraph, but the author did it for me.

[boutons_]

Much of the nation's medical bill is due to treating self-inflicted, life-style diseases like diabetes, stroke, CVD. The leading killer is still cigarettes.

The best defense against the food industry, which wants you dumbed down and consuming their sickening crap is smarting yourself up about nutrition.

[RandomGuy]

But hey, we have a market based health care system that is obviously sooo much better than those fucking socialists in Europe...

[PEP]

You're going to die, I'm going to die, that's a shame.

[RandomGuy]

You're going to die, I'm going to die, that's a shame.

Everybody dies.

But shorten a nation's life expectancy and you

1) shorten their contribution to the economy.
2) take their related caregivers out of the workforce, doubling or tripling the economic losses

The surest way to stunt a nation's growth is to shorten the population's overall lifespan.

Given the fact that we spend, just in out of pocket costs, more than any other industrialized country on health care for what we DO get, means that our current system is HORRIBLY inefficient, in terms of dollars spent and outcomes.

[jochhejaam]

So, that Harvard boys are implying that smoking and over-eating has an adverse effect on life expectancy? Wow! Thanks for posting RG, it's gonna take a while for that to sink in.


In another peer-reviewed study, published in the prestigious Science Magazine, scientists have concluded that massive blunt force trauma to the head can also be a cause for a decline in life expectancy!

[RandomGuy]

So, that Harvard boys are implying that smoking and over-eating has an adverse effect on life expectancy? Wow! Thanks for posting RG, it's gonna take a while for that to sink in.


In another peer-reviewed study, published in the prestigious Science Magazine, scientists have concluded that massive blunt force trauma to the head can also be a cause for a decline in life expectancy!

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2210/2109329417_841e5b06e3.jpg

The study says that life expectancy in the US has FALLEN.

Not that doing stupid things are bad for you.

Let me know when you actually bother reading the OP.

[Don Quixote]

Survival kit contents check. In them you'll find: one .45 caliber automatic; two boxes of ammunition; four days concentrated emergency raisons; one drug issue containing: antibiotics, morphine, vitamin pills, pep pills, sleeping pills, tranquilizer pills; one miniature combination Russian phrase book and bible; one hundred dollars in rubles; one hundred dollars in gold; nine packs of chewing gum; one issue of prophylactics; three lipsticks; three pair a nylon stockings. Shoot, a fellah could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff.

Great quote! The anti-self destruct button blew up.

I don't know ... about how old can people get? Even if we had the perfect medical system, and great nutrition for everyone (of course, government controlled) do you think we'd be able to really push life expectancy much past 80? At some point we have to think of diminishing returns.

For instance, Americans are much taller than they were 100 years ago, and people in general are much much taller than they were in the Ancient Near East. This is due to more balanced diets and better nutrition and medical care. But there has to be a limit to how tall we can get. I don't think the average man is going to get much taller than 5'9", if that. There's only so far it can go.

[Don Quixote]

Survival kit contents check. In them you'll find: one .45 caliber automatic; two boxes of ammunition; four days concentrated emergency raisons; one drug issue containing: antibiotics, morphine, vitamin pills, pep pills, sleeping pills, tranquilizer pills; one miniature combination Russian phrase book and bible; one hundred dollars in rubles; one hundred dollars in gold; nine packs of chewing gum; one issue of prophylactics; three lipsticks; three pair a nylon stockings. Shoot, a fellah could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff.

Great quote! The anti-self destruct button blew up.

I don't know ... about how old can people get? Even if we had the perfect medical system, and great nutrition for everyone (of course, government controlled) do you think we'd be able to really push life expectancy much past 80? At some point we have to think of diminishing returns.

For instance, Americans are much taller than they were 100 years ago, and people in general are much much taller than they were in the Ancient Near East. This is due to more balanced diets and better nutrition and medical care. But there has to be a limit to how tall we can get. I don't think the average man is going to get much taller than 5'9", if that. There's only so far it can go.

[sabar]

Not too concerned. Past 78 you become decrepit, live off medications, and your chances of dying from cancer or heart disease skyrocket. I'm aiming for quick death by trauma in the 68-74 range. It's less of an economic strain on family and society.

[jochhejaam]

The study says that life expectancy in the US has FALLEN.
Excellent deduction Holmes! :lol


Not that doing stupid things are bad for you.

"The culprits - largely preventable with better diet and access to medical services - are diabetes, cancers and heart disease caused by smoking, high blood pressure and obesity".

I don't believe that it would be especially difficult to conclude that engaging in life shortening activities such as, smoking, and over-eating to the point of being obese, qualify as "doing stupid things that are bad for you".
In essence, it does say that.





Let me know when you actually bother reading the OP.
Okay, I'll PM ya. :lol




Don't take this stuff too seriously RG

[101A]

Everybody dies.

But shorten a nation's life expectancy and you

1) shorten their contribution to the economy.


Fail.

Shorten life expectancy = Shorten amount of time you collect Social Security.

McDonalds, Krispy Kreme and Marlboro are a front Corps for a branch of treasury designed in the '60's to make sure Social Security never goes bankrupt. Other advances attributable to this organization? Dish with 250 Channels, the "Super Slurpie", "You Porn", and "Deal or no Deal".

[Don Quixote]

Shorten life expectancy = Shorten amount of time you collect Social Security.

McDonalds, Krispy Kreme and Marlboro are a front Corps for a branch of treasury designed in the '60's to make sure Social Security never goes bankrupt. Other advances attributable to this organization? Dish with 250 Channels, the "Super Slurpie", "You Porn", and "Deal or no Deal".

That's it! An evil conspiracy.

Well, it does make sense. I can see no other reason for the success of Dunkin Donuts and Burger King, or "reality TV." It's a communist plot to make sure we die of stroke and obesity.

We should try it on the terrorists.

[RandomGuy]

I don't know ... about how old can people get? Even if we had the perfect medical system, and great nutrition for everyone (of course, government controlled) do you think we'd be able to really push life expectancy much past 80? At some point we have to think of diminishing returns.



They have done studies on small worms in which they turn off ONE gene and the life span of that organism increased SIX TIMES.

The advances that they are making in researching aging are really remarkable.

At some point we will be able to custom grow individual organs. This will go a LONG way towards extending life spans.

I think the fact that, as a population, we aren't living as long as we used to is due mainly to the lack of access to health care.

(shrugs)

This simply supports my assertion that the opportunity costs of doing nothing and letting our shitty health care system limp along will increase over time.

The only question in my mind is when will those costs be so obvious to the blindly ideological right that even they might admit that not all problems have pure free-market solutions.

[RandomGuy]

Excellent deduction Holmes! :lol


Yet a sizeable portion of the population, mostly in rural regions, saw those modest gains level off and even reverse starting in the 1980s.


Does this passage indicate that life expectency has fallen, or does it say that smoking is bad for you?




[I]"The culprits - largely preventable with better diet and access to medical services - are diabetes, cancers and heart disease caused by smoking, high blood pressure and obesity".

I don't believe that it would be especially difficult to conclude that engaging in life shortening activities such as, smoking, and over-eating to the point of being obese, qualify as "doing stupid things that are bad for you".
In essence, it does say that.

Ok, you are right about that.

BUT

The thrust of the article was not to reiterate that these things are bad for you. It was that these things are having a marked effect on life expentency in the US.




Don't take this stuff too seriously RG

Meh. I don't take it that seriously. I do get worked up when people only read what they want to in data.

[Don Quixote]

They have done studies on small worms in which they turn off ONE gene and the life span of that organism increased SIX TIMES.

The advances that they are making in researching aging are really remarkable.


Yes, I've heard. I'm not so sure about your optimism that we can apply to results that we get with worms to human beings. Now, if we routinely start seeing people living to 120 (this is "only" a 50% improvement over 80), then I'll get a little excited. But I wouldn't count on it.

And wouldn't you attribute the rise in life expectancy to the sheer numbers of people who are living to a reasonably old age (70-80) as well as a massive decline in infant and child mortality? In other words, life expectancy hasn't gone up so much because people are living longer (although some are), but because a lot more people get to live to 70 or 80. I'm suggesting that there's a ceiling, and we're getting close to it, barring some technology that we're not even close to.

And I'm not sure how state-run health care helps much. This is not to say that the current system is good -- it isn't. But, ultimately, technological advances will be fueled by investment and market forces, and only a little by government subsidy.

[RandomGuy]

Yes, I've heard. I'm not so sure about your optimism that we can apply to results that we get with worms to human beings. Now, if we routinely start seeing people living to 120 (this is "only" a 50% improvement over 80), then I'll get a little excited. But I wouldn't count on it.

And wouldn't you attribute the rise in life expectancy to the sheer numbers of people who are living to a reasonably old age (70-80) as well as a massive decline in infant and child mortality? In other words, life expectancy hasn't gone up so much because people are living longer (although some are), but because a lot more people get to live to 70 or 80. I'm suggesting that there's a ceiling, and we're getting close to it, barring some technology that we're not even close to.

And I'm not sure how state-run health care helps much. This is not to say that the current system is good -- it isn't. But, ultimately, technological advances will be fueled by investment and market forces, and only a little by government subsidy.

No health insurance= no access to preventive care.

As the article points out, you can have the most technologically advanced system, but if you have no access, it doesn't mean much.

[Don Quixote]

I agree. The current system is fatally flawed. A good study on the history and development of the HMO system might be helpful here. Didn't it come about in the 70's at the urging of Ted Kennedy, et al?

Second, is the life expectancy number a statistical average? If so, I would like to get a look at the median, the mode, and some other interesting numbers. I wonder what that would tell us.

[RandomGuy]

I agree. The current system is fatally flawed. A good study on the history and development of the HMO system might be helpful here. Didn't it come about in the 70's at the urging of Ted Kennedy, et al?

Second, is the life expectancy number a statistical average? If so, I would like to get a look at the median, the mode, and some other interesting numbers. I wonder what that would tell us.

Well, as an average, it is a number that doesn't have that much absolute variation from the mode for each standard deviation like say, income.

I think in this case the average and the median are probably pretty close.

[101A]

No health insurance= no access to preventive care.

As the article points out, you can have the most technologically advanced system, but if you have no access, it doesn't mean much.

Got any stats that show more preventive care = longer life?

Life Insurance companies charge less for non-smokers, skinny people, and people who don't jump out of airplanes.

They don't ask if you have regular physicals.

Why is that? Maybe it doesn't matter statistically.

[101A]

Also, you might want to check the following statistics before you assume this is healthcare supply related:

Poverty and Smoking
Poverty and Obesity
Poverty and Nutrition

Could it be lifestyle choices of the poor in this country that are causing the disparity in life expectancy?

[RandomGuy]

Got any stats that show more preventive care = longer life?

Life Insurance companies charge less for non-smokers, skinny people, and people who don't jump out of airplanes.

They don't ask if you have regular physicals.

Why is that? Maybe it doesn't matter statistically.

Ok, here is a bit of honesty:

I don't have any stats to show that more preventive care = longer life.

I would be highly interested to see some solid data on this, and might do an interwebs search.

Given no other data, is it a reasonable conclusion that, over a large population, more access to preventive care would save lives that would otherwise be lost to fatal diseases?

A simple yes or no will suffice for this.

[RandomGuy]

Also, you might want to check the following statistics before you assume this is healthcare supply related:

Poverty and Smoking
Poverty and Obesity
Poverty and Nutrition

Could it be lifestyle choices of the poor in this country that are causing the disparity in life expectancy?

Yes.

Could poverty be the cause of lifestyle choices?

Quid pro quo. Honest answer.

[101A]

Given no other data, is it a reasonable conclusion that, over a large population, more access to preventive care would save lives that would otherwise be lost to fatal diseases?

A simple yes or no will suffice for this.

Reasonable? Yes.

Accurate (as in actual underwriting data supports it) No.


The VAST majority of people don't see the doctor until they sense something is wrong - NOT preventive care, but care with a diagnosis.

For the people that actually enter the doctor with no complaints - they leave the office with a clean bill of healthy; even if they shouldn't have one.

The tests to pick up Cancer are not standard; and they are often specific to a type of cancer - you have to be looking for it; to be looking for it, you have to have a reason....

That's one of the big killers. The other one? Heart disease. Doesn't take a physical to know if you are living a lifestyle that is condusive to a healthy heart; or to know if you are at risk. Nothing the doctor can do about it, anyway.

[101A]

Yes.

Could poverty be the cause of lifestyle choices?

Quid pro quo. Honest answer.

Chicken?

Egg?

Yes.

and

Poverty is the RESULT of lifestyle choices.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a correlation between intelligence and lifestyle choices.

I also wouldn't be surprise if there was a correlation between intelligence and socio/economic status.

Therein, with no politically incorrect data to support my theory; would be where I would bet the correlation would lie.

[RandomGuy]

Poverty is the RESULT of lifestyle choices.

What data do you have that supports this causality?

Here is the root of a lot of disagreement between the left and the right.

For the right, this is held up as dogma, just as surely as the left uses the dogma of "our society causes poverty"

Personally, I think it is probably something of a self-feeding cycle. To completely blame poor people for being poor is as irrational as saying they have no choice in the matter.

[xrayzebra]

What data do you have that supports this causality?

Here is the root of a lot of disagreement between the left and the right.

For the right, this is held up as dogma, just as surely as the left uses the dogma of "our society causes poverty"

Personally, I think it is probably something of a self-feeding cycle. To completely blame poor people for being poor is as irrational as saying they have no choice in the matter.

Well we know one thing for sure. Government sure
cant do much about poverty either, can they. They
have poured trillions into programs for them and many
of their off-springs are still collecting their bennies.

If anyone can do anything about being poor is the person
who is poor. Many escape that fate every year by their
own efforts.

Some, because of physical or mental problems do need
help. But many choose to stay in the situation.

[101A]

What data do you have that supports this causality?

Here is the root of a lot of disagreement between the left and the right.

For the right, this is held up as dogma, just as surely as the left uses the dogma of "our society causes poverty"

Personally, I think it is probably something of a self-feeding cycle. To completely blame poor people for being poor is as irrational as saying they have no choice in the matter.

You ignored the bulk of my post.

I didn't "completely" blame poor people - but, realistically, there is NO WAY, short of picking the six right numbers, that they can become anything other than poor except through their own actions.

Besides, we were talking about access to medical care; you're off on another left-wing rant. Have you ceded the point on access?

[101A]

What data do you have that supports this causality?


Does my brother in law count?

[RandomGuy]

Well we know one thing for sure. Government sure
cant do much about poverty either, can they. They
have poured trillions into programs for them and many
of their off-springs are still collecting their bennies.

If anyone can do anything about being poor is the person
who is poor. Many escape that fate every year by their
own efforts.

Some, because of physical or mental problems do need
help. But many choose to stay in the situation.

Someday, the hatred in your heart will consume you, if you do not give it up.

Ray, I wish you well.

(shakes head and walks away)

[RandomGuy]

Does my brother in law count?

(humor) He might even be able to multiply and divide.

I fully acknowledge that poor choices lead to poverty, of that I have no doubt.

BUT

Poverty can have some rather ill effects that increase the liklihood of poor choices in the first place.

Put any given kid in a harsh, poor environment, and see what happens. (shudders)

Ok, time is up. Gotta get to work.

[xrayzebra]

Someday, the hatred in your heart will consume you, if you do not give it up.

Ray, I wish you well.

(shakes head and walks away)

You are quick to judge a person aren't you. I hold no
hatred for anyone. On the Contrary I am for anyone to
succeed. I am for encouraging the young to complete
their education. For any person of any age going to
school or for additional training to further themselves
in life. I think that charity is good and should be freely
given.

But obviously you think government should take your
and my money without our consent, use it as the
government sees fit. Just because I don't, don't be
so quick to judge, lest you be judge yourself.
I have faith in the individual, you don't. So I disagree
with you, so therefore I hate. Real sense of reasoning
you have there. If someone disagrees with you, they
are haters.

[101A]

Someday, the hatred in your heart will consume you, if you do not give it up.

Ray, I wish you well.

(shakes head and walks away)

I don't read anything hateful in what Ray said; some truisms, but no hate.

[101A]

(humor) He might even be able to multiply and divide.

I fully acknowledge that poor choices lead to poverty, of that I have no doubt.

BUT

Poverty can have some rather ill effects that increase the liklihood of poor choices in the first place.

Put any given kid in a harsh, poor environment, and see what happens. (shudders)

Ok, time is up. Gotta get to work.

I don't disagree; but the alternative? To COMPLETELY even the playing field for all? Read Plato's Republic; he had that as his Utopia over 2,000 years ago.

[boutons_]

Upward mobility in USA has greatly declined.

if you're born to middle-class parents who went to college, you'll probably go to college and be middle-class (not that there's anything comfortable about middle-class anymore, since househeld debt is 125% of income).

If you were born poor, the overwhelming odds are that you will stay poor and not got to college, the cost of which at state schools now exceeds the poverty income for a family of 4.

The "bad choices" is pure right wing bullshit, straight out of the conservative think tanks manned by wealthy, privileged "thinkers" and implementing their decades-old "vast right wing conspiracy" to protect the privileged and superrich, to destroy opportunity, to destroy egalitarianism. eg, see dubya absolutely refusing to "support the (mostly lower-class) troops" with proper veteran medical care.

Fight our oil wars, suckers, and then go fuck yourselves.

Poor stays poor overwhelmingly, well-off stays well-off overwhelminlgly, and the classification/stratification of US society continues unabatedly toward severity. Just like the "social/economic Darwinian" conservatives think it should be. Level playing field? GMAFB

[101A]

Upward mobility in USA has greatly declined.

if you're born to middle-class parents who went to college, you'll probably go to college and be middle-class (not that there's anything comfortable about middle-class anymore, since househeld debt is 125% of income).

If you were born poor, the overwhelming odds are that you will stay poor and not got to college, the cost of which at state schools now exceeds the poverty income for a family of 4.

The "bad choices" is pure right wing bullshit, straight out of the conservative think tanks manned by wealthy, privileged "thinkers" and implementing their decades-old "vast right wing conspiracy" to protect the privileged and superrich, to destroy opportunity, to destroy egalitarianism. eg, see dubya absolutely refusing to "support the (mostly lower-class) troops" with proper veteran medical care.

Fight our oil wars, suckers, and then go fuck yourselves.

Poor stays poor overwhelmingly, well-off stays well-off overwhelminlgly, and the classification/stratification of US society continues unabatedly toward severity. Just like the "social/economic Darwinian" conservatives think it should be. Level playing field? GMAFB

Now, more than ever, the government pays people to be poor.

Ultimately, we get what we pay for.

[boutons_]

"the government pays people to be poor."

any evidence? links? right-wing think tank reports?

[101A]

"the government pays people to be poor."

any evidence? links? right-wing think tank reports?

I'm not poor; I don't get money from the Government.

My brother in law IS poor, he gets money from the government BECAUSE he's poor.


He gets paid to be poor. (May be a shock to you, but there are others like him)

[101A]

Unmarried mothers get checks from the government.

If one has an additional child, they get a bigger check from the government.

The Government pays for illegitimate children, too.

[boutons_]

Just one AR rice grower pockets $500M/year in subsidies.

Corn ethanol gets $50B in subsidies.

Oilco's were given $15B by dickhead for "research"

BigPharma pocketed $300B when dubya allowed them to patriate foreign profits they had stashed overseas to avoid US taxes.

etc, etc, etc.

Poor people and illegals are what's killing the USA? GMAFB

[101A]

Just one AR rice grower pockets $500M/year in subsidies.

Corn ethanol gets $50B in subsidies.

Oilco's were given $15B by dickhead for "research"

BigPharma pocketed $300B when dubya allowed them to patriate foreign profits they had stashed overseas to avoid US taxes.

etc, etc, etc.

Poor people and illegals are what's killing the USA? GMAFB

Who said poor were killing the U.S.?

You said there are more poor.

I said of course there's more poor, we're paying for people to be poor.

You said prove it.

I did.

You freaked out, and accused me of, well, whatever you accused me of.

I'm against farm subsidies; and subsidies to Big Oil.

Have a soft spot for basic scientific R & D.

#1. There's no direct profit motive for it; so business won't do much.
#2. Wife's a Ph.D. Biochemist.

[101A]

Oh, and the Corn/Ethanol debacle is wholly ridiculous.

[xrayzebra]

Upward mobility in USA has greatly declined.

if you're born to middle-class parents who went to college, you'll probably go to college and be middle-class (not that there's anything comfortable about middle-class anymore, since househeld debt is 125% of income).

If you were born poor, the overwhelming odds are that you will stay poor and not got to college, the cost of which at state schools now exceeds the poverty income for a family of 4.

The "bad choices" is pure right wing bullshit, straight out of the conservative think tanks manned by wealthy, privileged "thinkers" and implementing their decades-old "vast right wing conspiracy" to protect the privileged and superrich, to destroy opportunity, to destroy egalitarianism. eg, see dubya absolutely refusing to "support the (mostly lower-class) troops" with proper veteran medical care.

Fight our oil wars, suckers, and then go fuck yourselves.

Poor stays poor overwhelmingly, well-off stays well-off overwhelminlgly, and the classification/stratification of US society continues unabatedly toward severity. Just like the "social/economic Darwinian" conservatives think it should be. Level playing field? GMAFB

boutons, how would you know. As far as you are concerned the United States has been in the dark ages since you were wetting you pants.

There are so many people in this great country that
would disagree with your statement that upper
mobility has declined. If anything we have more
millionaires today than any time in our history. So get
back under your rock and suck your big toe and pick
your navel. You are a loser and always will be a loser.

[xrayzebra]

Upward mobility in USA has greatly declined.

if you're born to middle-class parents who went to college, you'll probably go to college and be middle-class (not that there's anything comfortable about middle-class anymore, since househeld debt is 125% of income).

If you were born poor, the overwhelming odds are that you will stay poor and not got to college, the cost of which at state schools now exceeds the poverty income for a family of 4.

The "bad choices" is pure right wing bullshit, straight out of the conservative think tanks manned by wealthy, privileged "thinkers" and implementing their decades-old "vast right wing conspiracy" to protect the privileged and superrich, to destroy opportunity, to destroy egalitarianism. eg, see dubya absolutely refusing to "support the (mostly lower-class) troops" with proper veteran medical care.

Fight our oil wars, suckers, and then go fuck yourselves.

Poor stays poor overwhelmingly, well-off stays well-off overwhelminlgly, and the classification/stratification of US society continues unabatedly toward severity. Just like the "social/economic Darwinian" conservatives think it should be. Level playing field? GMAFB

I would hope boutons would read the following two articles written by Dr. Thomas Sowell. I consider him much more informed on matters than boutons. But in a oblique way Dr. Sowell and boutons to agree with one another. Just for different reasons.



Jewish World Review April 22, 2008 / 17 Nissan 5768

The Economics of College

By Thomas Sowell




http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | A front-page headline in the New York Times captures much of the economic confusion of our time: "Fewer Options Open to Pay for Costs of College."


The whole article is about the increased costs of college, the difficulties parents have in paying those costs, and the difficulties that both students and parents have in trying to borrow the money needed when their current incomes will not cover college costs.


All that is fine for a purely "human interest" story. But making economic policies on the basis of human interest stories — which is what politicians increasingly do, especially in election years — has a big down side for those people who do not happen to be in the categories chosen to write human interest stories about.


The general thrust of human interest stories about people with economic problems, whether they are college students or people faced with mortgage foreclosures, is that the government ought to come to their rescue, presumably because the government has so much money and these individuals have so little.


Like most "deep pockets," however, the government's deep pockets come from vast numbers of people with much shallower pockets. In many cases, the average taxpayer has lower income than the people on whom the government lavishes its financial favors.


Costs are not just things for government to help people to pay. Costs are telling us something that is dangerous to ignore.


The inadequacy of resources to produce everything that everyone wants is the fundamental fact of life in every economy — capitalist, socialist or feudal. This means that the real cost of anything consists of all the other things that could have been produced with those same resources.


Building a bridge means using up resources that could have been used building homes or a hospital. Going to college means using up vast amounts of resources that could be used for all sorts of other things.


Prices force people to economize. Subsidizing prices enables people to take more resources away from other uses without having to weigh the real cost.


Without market prices that convey the real costs of resources denied to alternative users, people waste.


That was the basic reason why Soviet industries used more electricity than American industries to produce a smaller output than American industries produced. That is why they used more steel and cement to produce less than Japan or Germany produced when making things that required steel and cement.


When you pay the full cost — that is, the full value of the resources in alternative uses — you tend to economize. When you pay less than that, you tend to waste.


Whether someone goes to college at all, what kind of college, and whether they remain on campus to do postgraduate work, are all questions about how much of the resources that other people want are to be taken away and used by those on whom we have arbitrarily focused in human interest stories.


This is not just a question about robbing Peter to pay Paul. The whole society's standard of living is lower when resources are shifted from higher valued uses to lower valued uses and wasted by those who are subsidized or otherwise allowed to pay less.


The fact that the Soviet economic system allowed industries to use resources wastefully meant that the price was paid not in money but in a far lower standard of living for the Soviet people than the available technology and resources were capable of producing.


The Soviet Union was one of the world's most richly endowed nations in natural resources — if not the most richly endowed. Yet many of its people lived almost as if they were in the Third World.


How many people would go to college if they had to pay the real cost of all the resources taken from other parts of the economy? Probably a lot fewer people.


Moreover, when paying their own money, there would probably not be nearly as many people parting with hard cash to study feel-good subjects with rap sessions instead of serious study.


There would probably be fewer people lingering on campus for the social scene or as a refuge from adult responsibilities in the real world.



Jewish World Review April 23, 2008 / 18 Nissan 5768

The Economics of College, Part II

By Thomas Sowell




http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Those who argue that the taxpayers should be forced to subsidize people who go to colleges and universities seldom bother to think beyond the notion that education is a Good Thing.


Some education is not only a good thing but a great thing. But, like most good things, there are limits to how much of it is good — and how good compared to other uses of the resources required.


In other words, education is not a Good Thing categorically in unlimited amounts, for people of all levels of ability, interest and willingness to work.


Nor is there any obvious way to set an arbitrary limit. These are questions that no given individual can answer for a whole society.


The most we can do is confront individuals with the costs that their choices are imposing on others who want the same resources for other purposes, and are willing to pay for those resources.


Those who cannot bring themselves to face the tough choices that reality presents often seek escape to some kind of fairy godmother — the government or, more realistically, the taxpayers.


When the idea of conscripting taxpayers to play the role of fairy godmother for some arbitrarily selected favorites of the intelligentsia, "the poor" are often used as human shields behind which to advance toward their goal.


What will happen to the poor if there are no government subsidies for college?


If this argument is meant seriously, rather than being simply a political talking point, then there can always be some means test used to decide who qualifies as poor and then subsidize just those people — rather than the vastly larger number of other claimants for government largesse who advance toward the national treasury, using the poor as human shields.


Another option would be to allow students to sign enforceable contracts by which lenders would pay their college or university expenses in exchange for a given percentage of their future earnings.


That way, students would be issuing stocks to raise capital, the way corporations do, instead of being limited to borrowing money to be paid back in fixed amounts — the latter being equivalent to issuing corporate bonds.


Not only would this get the conscripted taxpayers out of the picture, it would also make it unnecessary for parents to go into hock to put their children through college.


Still, the financially poorest student in the land could get money to go to college, with a good academic record and a promising career from which to pay dividends on the lender's investment.


More fundamentally, it would confront the prospective college student with the full costs of all the resources required for a college education.


Those who are not serious — which includes a remarkably large number of students, even at good colleges — would have to back off and go face the realities of the adult world in the job market. But not as many jobs would be able to require college degrees if such degrees were no longer so readily available at someone else's expense.


If individuals issuing stock in themselves sounds impossible, it has already been done. Boxers from poor families get trained and promoted at their managers' expense, in exchange for a share of their future earnings.


Even some college students have already gotten money to pay for college in exchange for a share of their future earnings. However, in the current atmosphere, where college is seen as a "right," there has been resentment at having to pay back more than was lent when the recipient's degree brings in large paychecks.


What is truly repugnant to some people about college students issuing stocks as well as bonds is that this not only takes the government out of the picture, it takes the intelligentsia out of the picture as prescribers of how other people ought to behave.


Reality can be hard to adjust to. The most we can do is see that the adjustments are made by those who get the benefits, instead of making the taxpayer the one who has to do all the adjusting.


Makes you think, doesn't it?

[RandomGuy]

You are quick to judge a person aren't you.

http://www.retro.com/employees/lee/Ani/pot_kettle.jpg

Ray, I have seen you post here for literally years. I think that is sufficient for me to make some small guess at what is truly in your heart and mind.

As much as you think I am something of a "bleeding heart", I think your heart could use a little bleeding. :tongue

Please provide a link to the last charitable or compassionate thing you have said about anybody in poverty.

Or alternately, think back about the last compassionate thing you said or thought about anybody in poverty.

If you can think of anything quickly, and type it out here, I take it all back, and apologize.

[xrayzebra]

http://www.retro.com/employees/lee/Ani/pot_kettle.jpg

Ray, I have seen you post here for literally years. I think that is sufficient for me to make some small guess at what is truly in your heart and mind.

As much as you think I am something of a "bleeding heart", I think your heart could use a little bleeding. :tongue

Please provide a link to the last charitable or compassionate thing you have said about anybody in poverty.

Or alternately, think back about the last compassionate thing you said or thought about anybody in poverty.

If you can think of anything quickly, and type it out here, I take it all back, and apologize.

In the above post. I said
I have faith in the individual, you don't. So I disagree
with you, so therefore I hate. Real sense of reasoning
you have there. If someone disagrees with you, they
are haters.

You cannot be more charitable than believing in people.
And I know people do care about other people and do
many things to help others. In more ways than people
like you can even imagine.

I am a conservative and make no apologies for it.
So you can like it or lump it. I could care less your
opinion of me. As you more or less feel.

[RandomGuy]

...I am for anyone to
succeed. I am for encouraging the young to complete
their education. For any person of any age going to
school or for additional training to further themselves
in life. I think that charity is good and should be freely
given.

It might surprise you to read this, but I agree.


But obviously you think government should take your
and my money without our consent, use it as the
government sees fit.

"The government" as you put it is an elected one. It is where we pool our collective resources to accomplish things that need to get done.

If you got your way by some magic wave of the wand, and our government was replaced by the free-market fairies, you would still be paying some kind of money out of the economy for firefighting, police, food inspection, air traffic control, etc. etc. etc.

There would still be bureaucracy and there would still be some involuntary nature to it, as the fees would be rolled into some other bill that you pay for.

You spend too much time worrying about HOW your money is taken, and not enough about how it is spent once it is.

If you had taken all the time and effort you have spent over your lifetime bitching about taxes, and actually gotten involved in government to affect how those taxes are spent or allocated, we would have [insert magic thing here].



I have faith in the individual, you don't.

That is what someone told you think about liberals, and you have sucked it up as gospel without ever really asking any of them.

I have a lot of faith in the individual. The enormous success of Western civilization is owed entirely to tapping into the power of the individual and rewarding people for creativity and industriousness.

Give people the right tools and the right incentives and let human nature do the rest.


So I disagree
with you, so therefore I hate. Real sense of reasoning
you have there. If someone disagrees with you, they
are haters.

No. I disagree with lots of people who aren't "haters".

But everybody who reads things like

Well we know one thing for sure. Government sure
cant do much about poverty either, can they. They
have poured trillions into programs for them and many
of their off-springs are still collecting their bennies.


knows exactly what emotion you feel towards poor people when you refer to "them and many of their off-springs".

Perhaps I'm wrong about this. Only you know what is/was really in your heart at the time, and the written word doesn't allow for much expressiveness.

[RandomGuy]

Have you ceded the point on access?

Not by a long shot.

To support your assertion that we shouldn't provide more access to preventive care to people, you said that life insurance companies don't consider it a factor in underwriting.

Is that because there is no real hard data on how much access to preventive care affects risk, or because it is unreasonable to conclude that giving people preventive care might save lives?

[101A]

Not by a long shot.

To support your assertion that we shouldn't provide more access to preventive care to people, you said that life insurance companies don't consider it a factor in underwriting.

Is that because there is no real hard data on how much access to preventive care affects risk, or because it is unreasonable to conclude that giving people preventive care might save lives?

No, I think the Life Insurance companies have hard data on EVERYTHING that relates to how long a person lives. It is the way life insurance companies make money; anticipating when someone will die - and collecting a premium to insure that life. If they are too far off they are either going to go broke because claims are too high; or go broke because premiums are too high, and people are buying from other carriers.

So, if there was a significant difference in life expectancy between two people based on whether or not they receive "well care" or "preventive" care - the Insurance company would ask. They don't. Which, to me, indicates there probably isn't any difference.

Also, that wasn't the only argument I used...aside from data you can look at the nature of illnesses that kill us, and how those illnesses/diseases are discovered. For the major killers, preventive care isn't going to make a big difference.

What would make a difference? Lifestyle choices. Frankly, it is a fear of mine that when the government becomes the primary payor for all of our healthcare - making unhealthy lifestyle choices will be legislated against. Those bad individual choices will be seen as bad for all of us, since all of us are paying for them. I think it is inevitable, frankly that laws punishing those behaviors will be proposed, and given enough time and tax increases, pass.

[101A]

Oh, and on Today this morning they were in an uproar that, specifically, WOMEN are living shorter lives now.

Well, they fought for the right to be like men, didn't they? I think the narrowing of the gap in life expectancy would have been part and parcel of that. Apparently it is.

[Extra Stout]

Oh, and the Corn/Ethanol debacle is wholly ridiculous.
Indeed, rigging the market so that a famine occurs is pretty ridiculous.

[xrayzebra]

Here is part III of The Economics of Education by Dr. Thomas Sowell.



Jewish World Review April 24, 2008 / 19 Nissan 5768

The Economics of College, Part III

By Thomas Sowell




http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Why does college cost so much?


There are two basic reasons. The first is that people will pay what the colleges charge. The second is that there is little incentive for colleges to reduce the tuition they charge.


Those who want the government to provide subsidies to help meet the high cost of college seem not to consider whether government subsidies might have contributed to the high cost of college in the first place.


In any kind of economic transaction, it seldom makes sense to charge prices so high that very few people can afford to pay them. But, with the government ready to step in and help whenever tuition is "unaffordable," why not charge more than the traffic will bear and bring in Uncle Sam to make up the difference?


The president of a small college once told me that, if he charged tuition that was affordable, even an institution the size of his would lose millions of dollars of government money every year.


In a normal market situation, each competing enterprise has an incentive to lower prices if that would attract business away from competitors and increase its profits.


Unfortunately, the academic world is not a normal market situation.


Some of the ways of cutting costs that a business might use are not available to a college or university because of restrictions by the accrediting agencies and the American Association of University Professors.


There was a time, back in the early 1960s, when my academic career began, when many — if not most — colleges had their faculty teaching 12 semester hours and a few had teaching loads of 15 semester hours.


Spending even 15 hours a week in a classroom may not seem like a lot to people who spend 35 or 40 hours a week on the job. However, there is also the time required to prepare lectures, grade tests and do other miscellaneous campus chores.


Even so, 12 hours a week in a classroom is not a killing pace, especially for professors who have taught a few years and have their lecture notes from previous years to help prepare for the current year's classes.


But that was then and this is now. Today, a teaching load of more than 6 semester hours is considered sweatshop labor on many campuses.


Incidentally, since academic class hours are 50 minutes long, 6 semester hours mean actually 5 hours a week in the classroom.


Why was it considered necessary to cut the teaching load in half? Mainly because professors were expected to do more research.


Why was more research considered necessary? Because research brings in more money from the government, from foundations and from other sources.


On many campuses, a beginning faculty member cannot expect to be promoted to a tenure position unless he or she brings research money into the campus coffers.


Once 6 semester hours of teaching becomes the norm, an individual college that tried to economize by having its faculty teach 9 or 12 semester hours could run into trouble with the American Association of University Professors and the accrediting agencies.


The University of Colorado law school had its accreditation by the American Bar Association put in jeopardy simply because they did not spend enough money on books for their law library — even though their students passed the bar exam on the first try at a higher rate than the law students at Harvard and Yale.


The criteria used by most accrediting agencies are based on inputs — essentially spending — rather than results for students.


Competition among academic institutions therefore seldom takes the form of lowering their costs of operation, in order to lower tuition. The incentives are all the other way.


Competition often takes the form of offering more upscale amenities — posh lounges, bowling alleys, wi-fi, finer dorms.


None of this means better education. But, so long as the customers keep buying it — with government help — the colleges will keep selling it.

[RandomGuy]

Interesting story. Thanks.

[RandomGuy]

I went out and read the other articles in the series.

I was struck by a certain line of reasoning...


Prices force people to economize. Subsidizing prices enables people to take more resources away from other uses without having to weigh the real cost.

Without market prices that convey the real costs of resources denied to alternative users, people waste.

When you pay the full cost -- that is, the full value of the resources in alternative uses -- you tend to economize. When you pay less than that, you tend to waste.

That was the basic reason why Soviet industries used more electricity than American industries to produce a smaller output than American industries produced. That is why they used more steel and cement to produce less than Japan or Germany produced when making things that required steel and cement.

I use this very line of reasoning when arguing for environmental laws.

When you allow for pollution of most sorts, you degrade the overall environment. If you do not have laws that force the costs of pollution back on the polluters themselves, they tend to "waste" a given resource such as clean air, or clean water.

A factory or industry that pollutes the environment with impunity is being subsidized by everybody else who loses out to varying degrees, generally in some form of decreased health.

When conservatives rail against environmental laws as being "too constricting" and "costing jobs", they are essentially asking for subsidies to industry to pollute and the waste of our health that accompanies it.

In this case, the "subsidy" is the ability to pollute, but not to bear the full cost of that pollution.

I remember a conversation here about new refineries in the US, in which I challenged someone to drill under any refinery in the US until you hit groundwater, pump that out, and live on that water for the rest of their lives.

He then sidestepped that and said, "you can drink the discharge water", that the refinery cleans up and sends back out into the environment.

I have no doubt that refineries clean up their discharge water to an acceptable degree.

What was left unsaid/unadmitted, was the fact that, over the course of the life of any refinery, you WILL get leaks and spills, and all sorts of contamination that you don't find out about until years after the fact.

This is part of the "cost" of our oil usage. I have no problem with using oil per se. It is highly efficient and useful. I just don't want "pollution subsidies" hiding the true costs, and encouraging waste of the one resource we all share, like it or not: our environment.

[RandomGuy]

But that is a bit off topic...

[xrayzebra]

I went out and read the other articles in the series.

I was struck by a certain line of reasoning...



I use this very line of reasoning when arguing for environmental laws.

When you allow for pollution of most sorts, you degrade the overall environment. If you do not have laws that force the costs of pollution back on the polluters themselves, they tend to "waste" a given resource such as clean air, or clean water.

A factory or industry that pollutes the environment with impunity is being subsidized by everybody else who loses out to varying degrees, generally in some form of decreased health.

When conservatives rail against environmental laws as being "too constricting" and "costing jobs", they are essentially asking for subsidies to industry to pollute and the waste of our health that accompanies it.

In this case, the "subsidy" is the ability to pollute, but not to bear the full cost of that pollution.

I remember a conversation here about new refineries in the US, in which I challenged someone to drill under any refinery in the US until you hit groundwater, pump that out, and live on that water for the rest of their lives.

He then sidestepped that and said, "you can drink the discharge water", that the refinery cleans up and sends back out into the environment.

I have no doubt that refineries clean up their discharge water to an acceptable degree.

What was left unsaid/unadmitted, was the fact that, over the course of the life of any refinery, you WILL get leaks and spills, and all sorts of contamination that you don't find out about until years after the fact.

This is part of the "cost" of our oil usage. I have no problem with using oil per se. It is highly efficient and useful. I just don't want "pollution subsidies" hiding the true costs, and encouraging waste of the one resource we all share, like it or not: our environment.

So what is the answer to environmental problems. We
go back to the stone age? The age of the horse drawn
carriage, where incidentally horse manure was a real
problem.

I don't think anyone wants dirty air or water or the
area where you and I live. But, there must be controls
placed on the environmental laws. We could not if we
wanted to go to pristine conditions. Mother nature
herself creates waste that pollutes. She also cleans up
much of our waste. Buzzards are part of her clean up
crew. Throw a body on an open area and nature will take
care of disposing of it although the process is kinda
messy by our standards.

But you must admit that refineries have also contributed
to the betterment of mankind. Without them we would
be in real trouble. Yes, in the immediate area the may
cause some problems, if nothing else they don't smell
that great. And you yourself say that they clean up their
wastewater. Spills do occur, but not as frequently as
in the past.

We hear all these gripes about "terrible oil". But without
it we wouldn't have many emergency/essential services, clothes,
pharmaceuticals, ability to travel great distances in short
periods of time. It gives us many benefits and will
continue to do so for many years to come.

[RandomGuy]

So what is the answer to environmental problems. We
go back to the stone age? The age of the horse drawn
carriage, where incidentally horse manure was a real
problem.

The difference between us is that I have faith in business, and you don't.
Solutions to pollution of all sorts can be had, if you just allow the power of the free-market to get rid of the waste by truly pricing in the ultimate effects of pollution.

You think that businesses need hand-outs in order to be profitable and give us jobs. I don't.

I am tired of the compulsory taxing of my health and my children's health for the benefit of companies that are too lazy to get off their butts and find solutions to manufacturing problems that don't require nasty chemicals and God-knows what kind of inefficiencies. We can do better.



I don't think anyone wants dirty air or water or the
area where you and I live. But, there must be controls
placed on the environmental laws.

"Controls on environmental laws" = encouraging waste.


We could not if we
wanted to go to pristine conditions. Mother nature
herself creates waste that pollutes. She also cleans up
much of our waste. Buzzards are part of her clean up
crew. Throw a body on an open area and nature will take
care of disposing of it although the process is kinda
messy by our standards.

Now all we need is underground benzine-eating buzzards to eat all the heavy metals and carcinigens.

If only it were that easy. Nature does indeed clean things, but FAR slower than we can f*** things up.

Tell ya what. If you like pollution, why not go to some of the superfund sites near abandoned mines.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/162655main_image_feature_697_ys_4.jpg

Here is a particularly tasty one (http://www.pitwatch.org/qa.htm), feel free to get rid of the silly environmental laws, and take a swim in this.


But you must admit that refineries have also contributed
to the betterment of mankind. Without them we would
be in real trouble. Yes, in the immediate area the may
cause some problems, if nothing else they don't smell
that great. And you yourself say that they clean up their
wastewater. Spills do occur, but not as frequently as
in the past.

Indeed. Unlocking the energy in oil has allowed for a level of human progress that is truly amazing.

Yes, the refineries are getting better, as are mining techniques. All the more reason to encourage that trend to continue.


We hear all these gripes about "terrible oil". But without
it we wouldn't have many emergency/essential services, clothes,
pharmaceuticals, ability to travel great distances in short
periods of time. It gives us many benefits and will
continue to do so for many years to come.

Not for much longer. For a variety of reasons, oil will cease providing the majority of our energy needs. We can either realize this and plan accordingly, or continue to cling to something that has outlived its usefulness.

[xrayzebra]

[QUOTE]The difference between us is that I have faith in business, and you don't.

I don't! I don't remember saying that. I have all the faith
in the world in business. They have proven they can and
do run clean operations.




Y
ou think that businesses need hand-outs in order to be profitable and give us jobs. I don't.

Again, I don't recall saying any such thing.


.
...find solutions to manufacturing problems that don't require nasty chemicals and God-knows what kind of inefficiencies. We can do better.


I think business would also like to get rid of "nasty chemicals". They would like to be able to produce their
product in a pollution free environment, they would save a
bundle.




"Controls on environmental laws" = encouraging waste.

Not necessarily true. Many environmental laws are not
in reality environmental. They are restrictive because of
the people wanting them don't like something in
particular. Like ruining their view. Hello Ted Kennedy.






Tell ya what. If you like pollution, why not go to some of the superfund sites near abandoned mines.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/162655main_image_feature_697_ys_4.jpg

Here is a particularly tasty one (http://www.pitwatch.org/qa.htm), feel free to get rid of the silly environmental laws, and take a swim in this.



Many of these sites were generated many years ago. And
no I wouldn't like swimming in any polluted body of water.
But as stated above limits need to be placed on
environmentalist and their laws.


Indeed. Unlocking the energy in oil has allowed for a level of human progress that is truly amazing.

Yes, the refineries are getting better, as are mining techniques. All the more reason to encourage that trend to continue.



Not for much longer. For a variety of reasons, oil will cease providing the majority of our energy needs. We can either realize this and plan accordingly, or continue to cling to something that has outlived its usefulness.

And what pray tell is going to replace oil. Wind, nuclear,
sun, ethanol, hydrogen or what. There is nothing even
close to being developed that will replace it. Nothing!
Oil is here to stay for several more generations, like it
or not. Face the facts.

[Don Quixote]

Look, we're all okay with developing alternative sources of energy. We want to be clean and energy independent.

In the meantime, let's get the oil reserves we have on U.S. soil, drill it and sell it, and stop buying it from Hugo and the middle east.

And what does this have to do with life expectancy anyway?

[RandomGuy]

[QUOTE=RandomGuy;2425870]

I don't! I don't remember saying that. I have all the faith
in the world in business. They have proven they can and
do run clean operations.

Again, I don't recall saying any such thing.

I think business would also like to get rid of "nasty chemicals". They would like to be able to produce their
product in a pollution free environment, they would save a
bundle.


Not necessarily true. Many environmental laws are not
in reality environmental. They are restrictive because of
the people wanting them don't like something in
particular. Like ruining their view. Hello Ted Kennedy.

Many of these sites were generated many years ago. And
no I wouldn't like swimming in any polluted body of water.
But as stated above limits need to be placed on
environmentalist and their laws.

And what pray tell is going to replace oil. Wind, nuclear,
sun, ethanol, hydrogen or what. There is nothing even
close to being developed that will replace it. Nothing!
Oil is here to stay for several more generations, like it
or not. Face the facts.

:lol Heh, I was just (mostly) trying to get your goat there a little, and trying to get you to see things in a new way.

The oil companies themselves don't give oil much longer.

The thing is that as the cost per unit of energy of oil goes up, other forms of energy become more competitive.

If you want to make some money in the next 40 years, invest in wind and solar.

NOT that they will replace or become the sole sources of energy, but because their relative share of the pie will get a LOT larger. This will allow for a LOT of profit to be made by the companies that provide it.

I am 100% betting my first retirement money on this one.

GE and UNP are two companies that stand to benefit greatly from oil getting more expensive for a lot of reasons. GE is a leading US provider of wind turbines, and Union Pacific will use trains to take up where the trucking industry will be forced to leave off.

Good grief, I might even guess Amtrack might finally become profitable...

Hell, I took a train to Denver once, and aside from the time, and some occasionally shitty service, it was kind of a fun experience. I met some real Amish business travelers.

In Austin the train station is less than 5 minutes from down town, there is plenty of parking, no big long lines for anything, and you can walk to all sorts of places.

Contrast that to my recent flight at Christmas, where it took a mile walk from my cheap ass parking, had to take off my freakin' shoes, etc.

[RandomGuy]

Look, we're all okay with developing alternative sources of energy. We want to be clean and energy independent.

In the meantime, let's get the oil reserves we have on U.S. soil, drill it and sell it, and stop buying it from Hugo and the middle east.

And what does this have to do with life expectancy anyway?

It doesn't really. I just like talking about energy. :oops

[Winehole23]

Went down in 2015-2017.

The last time US life expectancy dropped three years in a row was during WW1.

[spurraider21]

thanks obama

[Winehole23]

Yep.

TARP, zero bound interest and trillions in QE for Wall St., layoffs, foreclosure and bootstrap therapy for Main St..

[CosmicCowboy]

Went down in 2015-2017.

The last time US life expectancy dropped three years in a row was during WW1.

I wonder what it would be if you took out suicides and overdoses.

[Winehole23]

You can't take those out. Politically and statistically suicides and overdoses are significant. Deaths of despair tell us something about the quality of life here.

[CosmicCowboy]

You can't take those out. Politically and statistically suicides and overdoses are significant. Deaths of despair tell us something about the quality of life here.

Lifestyle wise I'm pretty sure people in general have it a lot better today than they had it in 1918 yet I'm pretty sure they are committing suicide in greater numbers. I tend to think it is a cultural deterioration but I'm sure some in here would argue that point. As for accidental overdoses it's interesting you call those "deaths of despair". Generally they are seeking to get high for fun and just accidentally fuck up.

[Winehole23]

yeah, not sure I'd equate opiate addiction with fun.

[CosmicCowboy]

Just looking at suicide stats. Interesting fact, 7 out of 10 suicides are white males.

Any theories on why?

[rmt]

Lifestyle wise I'm pretty sure people in general have it a lot better today than they had it in 1918 yet I'm pretty sure they are committing suicide in greater numbers. I tend to think it is a cultural deterioration but I'm sure some in here would argue that point. As for accidental overdoses it's interesting you call those "deaths of despair". Generally they are seeking to get high for fun and just accidentally fuck up.

Maybe it's just more spare time and social media currently than in 1918 with WW1 (more concerned about survival).

[rmt]

Just looking at suicide stats. Interesting fact, 7 out of 10 suicides are white males.

Any theories on why?

Is it a certain age group?

[CosmicCowboy]

Is it a certain age group?

Highest in middle age. My guess is lack of accomplishment, financial stress, fucked and unfuckable like Boutons.

[boutons_deux]

USA for the last 3, 4 years has had a decline in longevity

It's not upper class, or lower class, but the middle class and just below, and white.

The same populaiton segment that supports Trash as some kind of savior, and as someone who LIES to them that their hopeless, no future, financially stressed life is the fault of immigrants, blacks, browns

drugs, alcohol, and of course y'all's beloved, adored guns

There's been many articles, reports on the longevity decline.

UK is another country with a decline.

[CosmicCowboy]

USA for the last 3, 4 years has had q decline with longevity

It's not upper class, or lower class, but the middle class and just below, and white.

The same populaiton segment that supports Trash as some kind of savior, and as someone who LIES to them that their hopeless, no future, financially stressed life is the fault of immigrants, blacks, browns

drugs, alcohol, and of course y'all's beloved, adored guns

There's been many articles, reports on the longevity decline.

UK is another country with a decline.

So why wasn't the suicide rate high in 1918? Average family lived in a 3 room house, no air conditioning, some no electricity, no phones, no social safety net, no social security, basically if you didn't work you didn't eat. It sucked a lot worse than it does today. Why weren't people offing themselves?

[boutons_deux]

So why wasn't the suicide rate high in 1918? Average family lived in a 3 room house, no air conditioning, some no electricity, no phones, no social safety net, no social security, basically if you didn't work you didn't eat. It sucked a lot worse than it does today. Why weren't people offing themselves?

Crowded living conditions connects people, and one of the supposed causes of the suicide rate, esp among older men, is social isolation, often compounded by lifestyle diseases and their crushing copays, financial stress, and a retirement in or close to poverty.

[Millennial_Messiah]

U.S. healthcare system and greedy mercenary doctors here is by far the worst out of all the most industrialized nations.

:lol 41st
:lol U$A