U.S. Life Expectancy May Have Peaked

[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 ins ution 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 compe ors 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.


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


Compe ion 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.



Here is a particularly tasty one, 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=RandomGuy;2425870]

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. o Ted Kennedy.

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



Here is a particularly tasty one, 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=xrayzebra;2425930]

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. o 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.

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 compe ive.

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...

, I took a train to Denver once, and aside from the time, and some occasionally ty 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.

[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 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 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, ed and un able 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.