5 ms·

Falling inequality in mortality in the US

63 points by MaysonL 10y ago

hodwik 10y ago
Uh oh, this doesn't fit the class-war narrative so no one is going to touch it.
- paulddraper 10y ago
  Nah, it just needs some fresh spin. "Mortality inequality remains, even in 2016" Then prescribe universal healthcare.
- adrenalinelol 10y ago
  The article does say: "Overall, these findings show that even in times of great economic inequality, inequality in health outcomes is not inevitable but is strongly mediated by policy." Acknowledging income inequality as a problem, even if it isn't have a negative effect on whether you die earlier or not.
  - hodwik2 10y ago
    How does that sentence acknowledge income inequality as a problem? It just acknowledges it exists, it doesn't make any claim about whether or not it is a problem.
    - adrenalinelol 10y ago
      The snippet: "...in times of great economic inequality..." ^Is intentionally sensationalized, the notion being that economic inequality in our society is generally viewed as a negative. Consider the following: "...in times of great famine..." Now you could try to make the argument that someone is merely stating a fact and picked an adjatiave which helps the reader picture what's going on, but I don't think anyone would assume the author considered famine to be a "neutral fact". Similarly, the end snippet is clearly addressing the elephant in the room given the title of the article, which was certainly chosen due to the subject matter, but also due the phrase which we are debating (income inequality), which is essentially another way or saying that a class of people are losing wealth to another class.
      - hodwik 10y ago
        It acknowledges that some people think it is a problem, but it does not itself make any statement about whether or not it's a problem. For those of us who believe economic inequality is both good and natural, this is a great rhetorical device for undermining the left -- "in this time of great economic inequality, life is better than it has ever been for the general populace." A person on the left may use the opposite rhetorical device, "in this time of great economic freedom, people are increasingly poor." As this is written, there is no way to know which rhetorical device they were using.
- lumberjack 10y ago
  It's a centre-left policy think tank article advocating government health care initiatives. Just saying cause I don't think you read the article, yourself.
  - hodwik2 10y ago
    No, this work was done by the London based CEPR -- which is a bipartisan bank-funded research group for economists, not the leftist CEPR out of Washington, DC. They are completely unrelated. And the research drew this back to Government health initiatives which would be described as "victim blaming" by American Progressives -- healthy eating education and anti-smoking initiatives.
- justanother 10y ago
  Debt isn't possible without a counterparty.
noobermin 10y ago
I have to wonder, this largely seems to have coincided with the fantastic decrease in crime since the 2000's onwards. Coincidence? I largely agree with the article. This needs to be lauded and discussed.
cromulent 10y ago
What great news. Congratulations to all those working hard in that area. "Underlying explanations include declines in the prevalence of smoking and improved nutrition, and a major cause is social policies that target the most disadvantaged." It will be interesting how history treats smoking in the long term (next century). I am still interested in the solutions proposed (and defeated) in Singapore and Tasmania where persons born after 200x may not purchase cigarettes. I lean libertarian but this is one area I think government is needed. Taking (or taxing) a pleasure away from someone who has enjoyed it for years is not nice, but preventing people from falling into the trap is different.
- oxide 10y ago
  taxes don't discourage smokers, though. smokers are addicts, you can't price an addict out of an addiction. it's effectively taxing the impoverished, anyway. the people who are scrounging to buy smokes will just take that money from elsewhere in the budget. it's food out of children's mouths, in the most literal way possible. the people who aren't scrounging will just pay the increased price without batting an eye. the price of cigarettes had no impact on my decision to quit. I would have continued to pay whatever the cost might have been, 5 dollars a pack or 50 dollars a pack. switching to a personal vaporizer got me to quit smoking. I spend about 25% of what I spent on cigarettes for a month's supply of juice and replacement coils for the tank I use. I'm still addicted to nicotine, though.
  - thatswrong0 10y ago
    And tons of people are addicted to caffeine. Nicotine isn't so bad on its own (like caffeine).. So I guess the question is how safe the rest of the stuff in vapes is.
  - repsilat 10y ago
    > taxes don't discourage smokers, though. This has not been New Zealand's experience. In recent years our government has substantially (and steadily) increased the tax on tobacco, and sales have plummeted: http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11426107 http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=...
tux1968 10y ago
Rising equality in US mortality. Is nice to see some progress.
- home_boi 10y ago
  Dat double negative clickbait title

63 points by MaysonL 10y ago

hodwik 10y ago

Uh oh, this doesn't fit the class-war narrative so no one is going to touch it.

paulddraper 10y ago
Nah, it just needs some fresh spin. "Mortality inequality remains, even in 2016" Then prescribe universal healthcare.
adrenalinelol 10y ago
The article does say: "Overall, these findings show that even in times of great economic inequality, inequality in health outcomes is not inevitable but is strongly mediated by policy." Acknowledging income inequality as a problem, even if it isn't have a negative effect on whether you die earlier or not.
- hodwik2 10y ago
  How does that sentence acknowledge income inequality as a problem? It just acknowledges it exists, it doesn't make any claim about whether or not it is a problem.
  - adrenalinelol 10y ago
    The snippet: "...in times of great economic inequality..." ^Is intentionally sensationalized, the notion being that economic inequality in our society is generally viewed as a negative. Consider the following: "...in times of great famine..." Now you could try to make the argument that someone is merely stating a fact and picked an adjatiave which helps the reader picture what's going on, but I don't think anyone would assume the author considered famine to be a "neutral fact". Similarly, the end snippet is clearly addressing the elephant in the room given the title of the article, which was certainly chosen due to the subject matter, but also due the phrase which we are debating (income inequality), which is essentially another way or saying that a class of people are losing wealth to another class.
    - hodwik 10y ago
      It acknowledges that some people think it is a problem, but it does not itself make any statement about whether or not it's a problem. For those of us who believe economic inequality is both good and natural, this is a great rhetorical device for undermining the left -- "in this time of great economic inequality, life is better than it has ever been for the general populace." A person on the left may use the opposite rhetorical device, "in this time of great economic freedom, people are increasingly poor." As this is written, there is no way to know which rhetorical device they were using.
lumberjack 10y ago
It's a centre-left policy think tank article advocating government health care initiatives. Just saying cause I don't think you read the article, yourself.
- hodwik2 10y ago
  No, this work was done by the London based CEPR -- which is a bipartisan bank-funded research group for economists, not the leftist CEPR out of Washington, DC. They are completely unrelated. And the research drew this back to Government health initiatives which would be described as "victim blaming" by American Progressives -- healthy eating education and anti-smoking initiatives.
justanother 10y ago
Debt isn't possible without a counterparty.

noobermin 10y ago

I have to wonder, this largely seems to have coincided with the fantastic decrease in crime since the 2000's onwards. Coincidence? I largely agree with the article. This needs to be lauded and discussed.

cromulent 10y ago

What great news. Congratulations to all those working hard in that area. "Underlying explanations include declines in the prevalence of smoking and improved nutrition, and a major cause is social policies that target the most disadvantaged." It will be interesting how history treats smoking in the long term (next century). I am still interested in the solutions proposed (and defeated) in Singapore and Tasmania where persons born after 200x may not purchase cigarettes. I lean libertarian but this is one area I think government is needed. Taking (or taxing) a pleasure away from someone who has enjoyed it for years is not nice, but preventing people from falling into the trap is different.

oxide 10y ago
taxes don't discourage smokers, though. smokers are addicts, you can't price an addict out of an addiction. it's effectively taxing the impoverished, anyway. the people who are scrounging to buy smokes will just take that money from elsewhere in the budget. it's food out of children's mouths, in the most literal way possible. the people who aren't scrounging will just pay the increased price without batting an eye. the price of cigarettes had no impact on my decision to quit. I would have continued to pay whatever the cost might have been, 5 dollars a pack or 50 dollars a pack. switching to a personal vaporizer got me to quit smoking. I spend about 25% of what I spent on cigarettes for a month's supply of juice and replacement coils for the tank I use. I'm still addicted to nicotine, though.
- thatswrong0 10y ago
  And tons of people are addicted to caffeine. Nicotine isn't so bad on its own (like caffeine).. So I guess the question is how safe the rest of the stuff in vapes is.
- repsilat 10y ago
  > taxes don't discourage smokers, though. This has not been New Zealand's experience. In recent years our government has substantially (and steadily) increased the tax on tobacco, and sales have plummeted: http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11426107 http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=...

tux1968 10y ago

Rising equality in US mortality. Is nice to see some progress.

home_boi 10y ago
Dat double negative clickbait title